Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Ebbw Vale Urban District Council Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Great Eastern Railway Bill,

Not amended, considered; to be read the third time.

Wrexham District Tramways Bill (by order),

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

NEW WRITS.

For Borough of Northampton,

In the room of CHARLES ALBERT McCURDY, esquire, Minister of Food.

For Borough of Camberwell (North-West Division),

In the room of right hon. THOMAS JAMES MACNAMAER, Minister of Labour.—[Captain Guest.]

OUTRAGES (IRELAND).

Return ordered, "showing, with dates, the number of murders of members of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, and of soldiers, officials, and civilians, and the number of political outrages on persons and property in Ireland since the 1st day of January, 1919."—[Lord Robert Cecil.]

Oral Answers to Questions — COKE EXPORTED.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 1.
asked The President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the declared policy of the Government to give preference to home industries in the matter of coke supplies, a large number of blast furnaces in the North-East Coast area are still working under half-blast and others are standing idle owing to shortage of coke, whilst at the same time railway wagons loaded with coke are being hauled from the neighbouring coalfields to ports adjoining these furnaces; and will he take steps to see that exports of coke are further reduced until home industries are adequately supplied?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Bridge-man): No coke-oven coke is being exported
from any area in England other than Durham and South Wales, and exportation is only allowed in those cases provided that inland supplies are fully met. One case was reported in which Durham coke suitable and required for works in that area had been sent for export, but the local Coal and Coke Supplies Committee have given orders to prevent this happening again. Export of gas coke is subect to similar limitations.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: How long will the hon. Gentleman continue to restrict the exports of coke?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: We wish to supply the inland consumers with as much as they want.

Oral Answers to Questions — SALE OF TIMBER, ARCHANGEL.

Mr. LUNN: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any part and what part of the timber stocked in the Archangel and White Sea area was sold by the Government before it was shipped home; whether the sales were to middlemen; what was the price charged; and what conditions were imposed upon the purchasers?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: During the season 1919 no timber from Archangel or the White Sea was sold by the Government before it was shipped. For the season 1920 no timber has yet been shipped, as the ports do not open until June. Negotiations are now proceeding with a view to disposing of the whole of the Government's holdings for shipment during 1920.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORT LICENCES.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade under what powers export licences are granted by his Department?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Export licences are issued under the authority of the Privy Council. I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the Treasury announcement of the 20th February, 1915, as to the establishment of the War Trade Department to deal with applications for licences to export prohibited goods. The work of the War Trade Department has for some time past been discharged by arrangement
with the Privy Council Office and the Treasury by the Export Licence Section of the Board of Trade.

Oral Answers to Questions — DYE-STUFFS IMPORTED.

Mr. WATERSON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any prohibition on the import of dye-stuffs into this country; if so, under whose authority and what regulation; and when is the embargo likely to be removed?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The importation of dye-stuffs is not prohibited.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS AND COLLIERIES (RE-VALUATION).

Major BARNES: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the event of an Assessment Committee determining that there must be a re-valuation of the rateable hereditaments in their union, the Government will provide the necessary data for the re-valuation of the railways and collieries in the same way as railway companies and colliery companies would have done before the Government worked or controlled these undertakings?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Colliery owners remain in the management of their respective concerns during the period of the operation of control and are free to furnish Assessment Committees with similar information to that ordinarily furnished in the case of re-valuations made before the period of control. The questions as regards railways should be addressed to the Minister of Transport.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRIC LAMP INDUSTRY.

Mr. LUNN: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what action His Majesty's Government proposes to take with regard to the electric lamp manufacturers' combine, in view of the Report of the Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee on Trusts?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The Report of the Sub-Committee appointed by the Standing Committee on Trusts to investigate the electric lamp industry has only recently been received, and I am at present unable to make any statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESSRS. COURTAULDS (PROFITS).

Mr. LUNN: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. Courtaulds, Limited, silk manufacturers, made profits in 1919 amounting to £2,380,861, after provision for depreciation and taxation, representing 57 per cent. on the company's capital; and whether any inquiry is being made by the Central Profiteering Committee into the silk trade?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question. At present no investigation into the silk trade is being made by the Central Committee.

Mr. PEMBERTON BILLING: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in cases where 57 per cent. profit was made, they will note it?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The House must not take it that it is not the intention of the Committee to investigate. All I have said is that no investigation has yet taken place. They are very full of work at present. No doubt the matter will be brought before their notice.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it the intention to investigate?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I cannot say what is the intention of the Committee, but their attention will certainly be called to those questions, and they will certainly take notice of them.

Mr. HAROLD BRIGGS: Is my hon. Friend aware that Courtaulds' profits are not made from silk, as they do not manufacture real silk?

Oral Answers to Questions — PETROL SUPPLY.

Sir J. D. REES: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government proposes to avail itself of the services offered by Mr. H. W. A. Deterding in his letter of the 4th instant to the President of the Board of Trade?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The offer made by Mr. Deterding on behalf of the Royal Dutch Shell Group will not be lost sight of, and advantage will be taken of the offer should occasion arise.

Viscount CURZON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this gentleman is associated with Sir Marcus Samuel, who has
already stated that the price of petrol is what it will fetch?

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACT.

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS: 16.
asked the Secretary to the Board of Trade whether any use has been made of Section 4 of the Profiteering Act, which empowers the Board of Trade to authorise local authorities to trade in articles to which the Act applies?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The answer is in the negative. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for the Rothwell Division on 1st December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL PRODUCTION.

DATUM PERIOD REGULATION.

Mr. WATERSON: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered just recently the need of altering the datum period as it affects the retailers of coal; can he state the decision; and, if not, is he aware of the unfairness of this old datum period regulation that needs revision immediately?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member on the 23rd February.

RETAIL PRICES (COUNTRY DISTRICTS).

Captain R. TERRELL: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the diversity of rates for coal in the country districts where the facilities for cartage are the same; why in some villages coal is 10s. 6d. more than in adjoining villages which happen to be in the district of a different fuel controller; and can he take any steps to rectify this?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The retail prices of house coal depend upon many factors besides the cost of cartage, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will furnish particulars of cases where there is a difference of 10s. 6d. per ton in the price of coal in adjoining villages, I will cause inquiries to be made.

Mr. BILLING: As this coal question is one which the Government is more or less controlling, will the hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of trying to introduce a standard rate?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I do not quite understand what the hon. Member means by a standard rate, but if he will communicate with me as to what is in his mind, I shall be very glad to consider it.

AVERAGE PRICES.

Sir C. CORY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of the Trade whether his attention has been called to suggestions which have been made, as a result of certain figures given on page 8 of the Independent Accountants' Report on the Coal Industry, that colliery owners have sold coal to other departments of their undertakings at less prices than those charged to outside consumers; whether any difference between the average prices of coal sold by a colliery to works connected with the colliery and to outside consumers, respectively, is due to differences in the average quality of the coal in the two cases; and whether the prices charged by a colliery to works connected with the colliery are fixed on a commercial basis by the Coal Controller under the Coal Mines Agreement (Confirmation) Act, 1918, and not by the colliery owners, and are the same as those at which the works would be able to obtain the coal as ordinary purchasers from other collieries?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: There is no ground for the suggestion that colliery owners have transferred coal to other departments of their undertaking at a price less than that obtainable for coal of similar quality in the open market. Clause 17 of the Coal Mines Control Agreement (which Clause is embodied in paragraph 2 (1) of Part II. of the Second Schedule to the Coal Mines (Emergency) Bill provides that the Controller shall fix the transfer prices in all such cases "on a commercial basis," and in each of the composite concerns in question the Controller has fixed them at the market price at which the non-colliery department could have brought the coal from other collieries. These market prices are governed by the Price of Coal (Limitation) Act, and the subsequent Orders of the Board of Trade affecting inland prices. As suggested by the hon. Baronet, the average transfer price is below the average price of coal sold for inland use because the average quality is poorer. The bulk of the coal transferred is slack, which is used for coke ovens, iron and steel works, and kindred purposes; and its average market price during the period covered by Messrs.
Alfred Tongue and Company's report was not only below the average market price of other coal sold for inland purposes, but below the average cost of raising all coal, large and small.

SHORTAGE OF SUPPLIES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 9
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether, having regard to the more stabilised conditions, not alone of the coal, but of other industries in the country, he can say whether the shortage of coal by which the householder is being increasingly harassed is due to any other reason than loss of output occasioned by reduction of working hours, loss of working time, and a policy to force the elimination of private ownership in the coal industry by placing hardship on the private consumer; (2) whether he is aware of the inconvenience and hardship entailed by the shortness of supply and bad quality of coal supplied to the northern Metropolitan districts of London and parts of Middlesex; and what immediate action does he propose to take?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: The difficulties as regards supplies of coal for home consumption were dealt with in the statement made by the Leader of the House on the 16th February in answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Holborn. The steps which it was then indicated were about to be taken to improve supplies for household and domestic purposes are in operation, and, I believe, are having the desired effect.

DEVELOPMENT OF RESOURCES.

Sir P. GOFF: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the delays in the development of the coal resources of this country; and, if so, what steps he is taking to stimulate this development?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: Uncertainty as to the future of the industry has no doubt been inimical to some extent to development, but I hope that this will be removed by the proposals for the future ordering of the industry which will shortly be laid before Parliament. Meantime every encouragement is being given to capital expenditure on development, and for some months past the industry has been absorbing fresh labour at the rate of about 7,000 persons a month.

Sir P. GOFF: What is the name of the technical adviser?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I can give the whole staff if the hon. Gentleman will give me notice, but I do not know to which particular adviser he is referring to.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

LIGHTS AND ROAD VEHICLES.

Viscount CURZON: 18.
asked the Minister of Transport when the Reports of General Maybury's two Committees and the Advisory Committee on London traffic will be presented; and whether an opportunity will be given to the House to discuss them before any action is taken?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The Departmental Committee appointed to consider and report on lights and road vehicles has now presented a further Interim Report, and the desirability of the publication of both Reports is receiving consideration. I anticipate that the Committee dealing with the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles will be in a position to present its Interim Report within a fortnight. When legislation is required, the answer is in the affirmative. When action by Regulation is possible, I cannot give an undertaking until I have seen the Reports.

Mr. GRITTEN: When will the right hon. Gentleman present the two Interim Reports of the Lights Regulation Committee, and will a similar opportunity be afforded to the House of discussing those Reports?

Sir E. GEDDES: I think the same reply applies to that. If legislation be necessary, we shall have to come here.

Mr. GRITTEN: When?

Sir E. GEDDES: As soon as the legislation is prepared. Whether it can be done by Regulation I cannot say without seeing the Report.

Viscount CURZON: Is it the intention to proceed by Regulation or legislation?

Sir E. GEDDES: Legislation, I think, is necessary.

Mr. BILLING: In the event of Regulations making radical change, will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an
opportunity of debating them before he takes any action?

Sir E. GEDDES: That depends on the Leader of the House. If Regulations can carry out the recommendations and Parliament authorise the Regulations, we shall proceed by Regulation.

CYCLES (RAILWAY RATES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that the cyclists in all parts of the United Kingdom have protested against the recent increase in railway fares for the carriage of cycles accompanied by passengers; if he is aware that the rates for cycles have been twice increased, once in March, 1919, and again in January, 1920, making a total increase of 100 per cent. against the 50 or 60 per cent. for other goods; if he can see his way clear to make some arrangement with railway companies for the convenience of cyclists who for the purpose of health and recreation wish to leave the populated parts for a time, and so put their bicycles on the train to enable them to reach the country districts; if he is aware that at the present time if a bicycle is only carried two miles it costs 1s. 2d.; and if he will take action in the matter?

Mr. GRITTEN: 67.
asked the Minister of Transport why the railway rates for bicycles and tricycles accompanied by passengers have been twice raised within a period of 12 months, so that, instead of the lowest pre-war rate of 6d. for a bicycle and 1s. for a tricycle, the minimum charges are now 1s. 2d. and 3s. 9d., respectively, which charges are often actually in excess of the passenger fares; whether he is aware that such charges bear very harshly on a class who in the main are quite unable to incur such expense when they go on holiday or wish to reach the fringe of the country without riding through the traffic and outskirts of towns; and whether he will forthwith direct the reduction of the railway rates for bicycles and tricycles, especially in view of the fact that cyclists rarely take any other luggage than their machines and therefore do not avail themselves of the privileges of the ordinary railway traveller?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would refer the hon. Members to the answer given to a similar question put by the hon. Member for
Middlesbrough West on the 15th March. I have arranged that a deputation from the Cyclists' Union shall be received tomorrow.

Mr. GRITTEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, why, in spite of the pledge that the rates for cycles would not be raised without the cyclists' case being heard beforehand, the Rates Advisory Committee has had no cyclist witnesses before it, and has persistently refused to hear evidence from the Cyclists' Touring Club? And may I further ask whether he will see fit to restore the original minimum distance of one to twelve miles at the rate of 6d., instead of the first stage being one to thirty miles?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Rates Advisory Committee have discretion in regard to the question of rates, and I have no authority over it. When I have received the deputation, which I am seeing to-morrow, I shall do whatever I can to meet them.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Are any members of the Advisory Committee cyclists?

Sir E. GEDDES: Not so far as I know; not professional cyclists.

GOODS TRAFFIC (NOTTINGHAM).

Mr. ATKEY: 21.
asked why goods for Nottingham ex Denton and Manchester are sent via Rugby, where they are delayed from three to ten days before being delivered by the London and Northwestern Railway Company; and why cannot this traffic be sent by the Great' Central Railway, who have a far better and more direct service?

Sir E. GEDDES: With regard to goods from Manchester to Nottingham, I am informed that all routes are available and traders can utilise whichever is most convenient. As to traffic from Denton to Nottingham, traffic handed in at Denton Station, which is on the London and North-Western, would travel by that company's route. As regards the complaint of delay at Rugby, if the hon. Member will furnish more specific information, inquiries will be made. Traffic from Denton to Nottingham is not normally despatched via Rugby.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the service by the Great Central is so very much better that
it is not likely that anyone will voluntarily despatch goods by the Northwestern Railway, and that the matter needs explanation?

Sir E. GEDDES: I was not aware of that.

PORT, HARBOUR AND DOCK RATES.

Mr. MARSHALL STEVENS: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport what instructions, if any, he has issued to the ports, harbours and docks in possession of the Ministry to enable the operating bodies to increase their rates, tolls and charges to the same extent as Parliament has recently authorised increases in the case of ports, harbours and docks in the possession of other authorities; and, if instructions have been issued, when were they issued?

Sir E. GEDDES: No such instruuctions have been issued, and the latter part of the question therefore does not arise.

Mr. STEVENS: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will state for comparison the total of the rates, tolls, and charged other than charges for handling merchandise, collected by the dock owners at the Liverpool and the Hull docks, respectively, from a ship of 10,000 tons cargo capacity entering with a full cargo of wool, of wheat, and of cottonseed, respectively, from the most distant ports?

Sir E. GEDDES: I regret that it is not possible to make the detailed calculations desired on such hypothetical data.

Mr. STEVENS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider them if I make the calculations for him?

Sir E. GEDDES: I shall be glad to see any calculations made by my hon. Friend.

MIDLAND RAILWAY, NOTTINGHAM (PLATFORM CHARGES).

Mr. ATKEY: 24.
asked when the system of charging for admission to the platform of the Midland Railway station at Nottingham was first adopted; and what is the amount which has been received by the railway company up to date from this charge?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am not aware of the date when the Midland Railway Company's Station became a closed one, nor of the amount received by the Company for platform tickets.

Mr. WATERSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the exact amount of money that has been put into the hands of the Government from this system all over the country?

Sir E. GEDDES: That would be a very extensive inquiry, and would involve a great deal of time and labour.

Mr. BETTERTON: Is this the station from which facilities have recently been withdrawn on the ground of expense?

Sir E. GEDDES: Not recently—a considerable time ago. We have had many questions on thy subject.

CANALS.

Mr. WATERSON: 62.
asked the Minister of Transport if it is his intention to develop the railway-owned canals of the country that are now derelict?

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 74.
asked whether any steps are being taken to improve the canal system in Essex?

Sir ERIC GEDDES: The future of all canals is engaging my attention, but hon. members will appreciate that it is intimately bound up with that of other means of transport, and cannot be considered as a separate problem. As has already been stated in reply to a question by he hon. Member for Lincoln, the matter has been submitted to the Cabinet. At its request I have undertaken the elucidation of certain points arising on my Report, and hope to report further upon them shortly.

Mr. BILLING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the last General Election the Prime Minister made a special point of the fact that he would develop the canals of the country, and is it under his administration and advice that this policy is being altered?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am not aware of any alteration of policy.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: 63.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet in a position to state his intentions as to taking possession of canals under Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act?

Sir E. GEDDES: The whole subject of the position of the canals has been engaging my attention for a considerable time, and if any canal undertakers desire that
possession of the undertaking should be taken under the powers of the Ministry of Transport Act, I am prepared to favourably consider each case upon its merits upon application being made.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: May I ask why the right hon. Gentleman wishes to wait for applications, and why should he not take possession of all the independent canals which at present are controlled under D.O.R.A. and as provided by the Act?

Sir E. GEDDES: My desire was not to act in a coercive way at all, but to consider applications to take possession.

RAILWAY SERVANTS SUPERANNUATED.

Major BARNETT: 65.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to give effect to the resolution of the House that it is desirable that the statutory pensions of superannuated railway servants retired before or during the Government control of the railways should be increased to such an extent as will meet the increased cost of living?

Sir E. GEDDES: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary stated in the Debate the Government most heartily welcomed the motion, and offered no objection to its terms, but clearly stated that the matter was one for the Railway Companies to consider, and I trust they are doing so.

RAILWAY PASSENGER AND GOODS TRAFFIC.

Mr. GILBERT: 66.
asked the Minister of Transport if he will lay upon the Table of the House a Railway Return for the year 1918 or 1919 giving the following information: number of tons of goods conveyed by goods train, including military traffic; number of tons of parcels conveyed by passenger train; number of passengers conveyed, including military traffic, season ticket holders, and workmen; the total receipts from all sources; the mileage covered by all railways controlled by the Ministry of Transport; and the total number of employés, distinguishing salaried staff from wage staff, employed on all railways?

Sir E. GEDDES: I am arranging to lay before the House in duo course a copy of the Railway Returns for the year 1910 in a somewhat similar form to those presented annually prior to the War, but
suspended since 1913. It will not, however, be possible to give figures for 1918 or to include for 1919 all the particulars for which the hon. Member asks. I am also arranging for a census of railway employés which will distinguish salaried staff from wages staff.

LONDON SUBURBAN TRAFFIC.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 68.
asked the Minister of Transport what steps are being taken to improve the means of transport to the outlying districts in Eastern and North-Eastern London, either by electrification of existing permanent ways or other means?

Sir E. GEDDES: As regards electrification, I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my answer to his question on this subject on the 23rd February. Other means for extending and improving suburban transport facilities are engaging the attention of the Technical Committee of the Advisory Committee on London Traffic.

Mr. GILBERT: 69.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can now give the travelling public any information as to when it is proposed to re-open the stations in South London and work the Victoria to City line on the South Eastern and Chatham Railway?

Sir E. GEDDES: I regret I am not yet in a position to add anything to my reply on 1st March.

RAILWAY ENGINES AND WAGONS.

Mr. GILBERT: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport how many special establishments he has under Government control for the manufacture and repair of railway engines and wagons on the same or similar basis as Woolwich and Rich-borough; and can he make any general statement as to the results of "work in such establishments towards relieving the pressure on the railways at the present time?

Sir E. GEDDES: There are no special establishments of the class mentioned under the control of the Minister of Transport. The repairing shops at Rich-borough, which are under the Ministry of Munitions, have enabled wagons returned from France to be put into running repair more speedily than would
otherwise have been the case, and have thus contributed to the relief of the pressure on the railways.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask how long these repairs have been carried on at Richborough?

Sir E. GEDDES: That is a question for the Ministry of Munitions. It is not under the Ministry of Transport.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is it intended to be the permanent policy of the Government to repair and supply railway engines and wagons?

Sir E. GEDDES: I think that question should be addressed to the Ministry of Munitions and to the Transport Ministry.

RAILWAY TICKETS (CURRENT FARES).

Lieut. - Colonel DALRYMPLE WHITE: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he will now issue instructions that the current railway fares should be printed on all tickets, in view of the fact that the present rates have been in operation for a very long period and that the stock of the original tickets must be a negligible one?

Sir E. GEDDES: It has already been arranged that the actual fares now chargeable shall be marked on all ordinary railway tickets when new supplies are required. Some of the railway companies, however, have still in hand considerable stocks of tickets showing the pre-War fare which it would be undesirable to waste.

LIGHT RAILWAY MATERIAL (SURPLUS).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any proposals are being formulated in order to utilise the surplus light railway material from France for the transportation of agricultural produce in flat districts, such as the eastern counties?

Sir E. GEDDES: The existence of this material has not been lost sight of, and persons who wish to make use of it can obtain full particulars from the Disposals Board.

Captain TERRELL: Has the right hon. Gentleman yet formulated a complete transport scheme for the whole of the country and when will it be announced?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have already replied to that in an answer to a question to-day.

MOTOR VEHICLES (SPEED RESTRICTIONS).

Viscount CURZON: 75.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the time has now arrived when all necessity for the special speed restrictions of 10 miles per hour upon motor vehicles should be inquired into in the light of experience gained since their imposition, with a view to removing those which may not now be considered to be necessary.

Sir E. GEDDES: The question of restrictions on the speed of motor vehicles is one of the matters still to be considered by the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles. The need for the removal of existing restrictions which may now be unnecessary will be considered by the Committee.

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask whether in the event of the speed limit being abolished he intends to refund the fines imposed upon Cabinet Ministers and noble Lords who are Members of this House for exceeding the speed limit?

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT (PEOPLE'S COMMISSARIES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received any information as to the trial of former Ministers of the late Soviet Government in Hungary on charges of minder and forgery; whether every member of the former Soviet Government is charged with murder in 200 cases, which is the number of persons said to have been killed or executed under the Soviet Government; whether they are charged with forgery For printing paper money; whether he is aware that some of these Ministers only held purely technical and scientific posts and had no say in general policy; and whether His Majesty's Government will take any steps to save the lives of these men?

The UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Harms-worth): Under the Soviet Government in Hungary there were no regular Ministers, the administration being carried on by so called People's Commissaries of whom there were upwards of fifty. According to reports received from H.M. High Commissioner at Budapest, the principal Commissaries
escaped; of the remainder some fourteen are in prison. They are charged with murder, forgery, robbery, extortion by threat, sedition, teaching immorality in schools, and other crimes. The number and nature of the charges in each case varies with the information in possession of the authorities. The prisoners are all charged with forging-paper money, which I am advised is a true and legal charge. While some of them may have held purely technical and scientific posts, I am not in a position to form an opinion as to the weight which any particular People's Commissary may or may not have had in general policy. As regards the last part of the question I can only say once more that H.M. High Commissioner in Budapest has instructions to exercise a moderating influence, and is doing so, but that it is no part of his functions to interfere with the ordinary course of judicial proceedings in Hungary, and indeed the Hungarian Government are themselves debarred by the Constitution from interfering directly with the administration of justice.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: While thanking the hon. Member for the answer, may I ask whether it is not the fact that the Allied representatives under the Bela Kun Government did, with success, intervene in the direction of amelioration in the trials under the Soviet Government, and cannot our representative in Hungary now take some drastic steps, in view of the fact that we are directly responsible for setting up this Government?

HON. MEMBERS: Why should they?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Do yon want murder to go on?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The hon. and gallant Member is correct in the first part of his question. As regards the second part, I can add nothing to the answer which I have given.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask the Prime Minister, to whom this question is addressed, whether something cannot be done to save the lives of men who are subject to these awful crimes?

Oral Answers to Questions — COST OF LIVING (HIGHER WAGES).

Brigadier-General SURTEES: 27.
asked The Prime Minister whether, in view of
the ever-increasing cost of living and the recurrring demands for higher wages, which materially tend to advance prices, he will issue a Return showing the number of persons in each trade who have benefited by the increase of wages and the extent of such benefit, the number of trades and occupations which have secured no advance, and the number of persons in them who are suffering severely because of high prices and who are dependent on practically pre-War wages; and if he will give the aggregate amount of additional wages paid in each of the organised trades which have been successful in securing advances?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I have been asked to reply to this question. Particulars of the changes in rates of wages, so far as reported, are published each month in the "Labour Gazette." The information obtained relates mainly to organised bodies of work-people, and is not sufficiently complete to enable a Return to be prepared in the form suggested. I am sending the hon. Member, however, copies of the "Gazette "for the present month and for May, 1919, and January, 1920, of which the two last-named contain summaries of the statistics available at those dates. I have also arranged that the next issue of the "Gazette" shall contain a general review of the increases in wages in the principal industries from July, 1914, to the present time. With regard to the second part of the question, it is not possible to give information as to the cases, if any, where no increase on pre-War rates has been obtained. No such eases, among manual wage-earners, are known to the Department, but it is possible that some classes of salaried workers (who are not covered by our statistics) have not had increases, and there may even be rare cases among unorganised wage-earners, though the number of the latter must be very small.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH MISSION TO VATICAN.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir SAMUEL HOARE: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can make any statement as to the continuance of the British mission to the Vatican?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I cannot add anything to what
my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood-vale on February 16th last. Some communications which have been called for in regard to this matter are still awaited.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.

Sir S. HOARE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will circulate, before the Second Reading of the Government of Ireland Bill, a White Paper explaining its financial provisions and giving, amongst other details, the gross tax revenue per head that is being drawn from Ireland, Scotland and England.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Baldwin): A White Paper will be circulated very shortly, but it is not proposed to include in it comparisons with England and Scotland. Such comparisons will be found for 1918–19 in the Financial Relations Return (House of Commons 163 of 1919) which gives the total revenue as contributed by each of the three countries. The corresponding return for 1919–20 will be issued when the complete returns for the financial year are available.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 38.
asked whether it is the intention of the Government to send the Home Rule Bill to a Committee of the whole House?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 51.
asked whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill being read a second time, it is proposed to deal with it in Committee of the whole House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not in a position to give a reply at present, but the intention of the Government in this respect will be made clear in the Second Reading Debate.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that large numbers of Members of this House look upon it as essential that far-reaching changes in our constitution should be discussed on the floor of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: All that will be taken into account.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Could the right hon. Gentleman make a statement on this before the Second Reading is decided, as
possibly the votes of Members on the Second Reading may depend on the decision of the Government on this matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: A statement will be made before a Division on the Second Reading is taken.

Sir W. MITCHELL-THOMSON: In view of the amount of the finances involved is it not entirely unprecedented that a Bill such as this should be taken in Committee upstairs?

Mr. BILLING: Before giving a decision does the Government propose to take a vote of the House as to what course shall be adopted?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government will consider the question fully.

Major O'NEILL: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say if the White Paper explanatory of the finance of the Government of Ireland Bill will contain figures showing the estimated true revenue and local expenditure of northern and southern Ireland respectively?

Mr. BALDWIN: Yes, Sir; the White Paper will contain the best estimates of present revenue and expenditure that circumstances allow.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the hon. Gentle man tell us on what basis these Estimates will be calculated?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot answer that.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I did not think you would.

LOCAL RISINGS (ALLEGED).

Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS: 67.
asked the Prime Minister whether information has come to the Government that a rising has been planned in Ireland for the 5th April; whether information has come to the Government that local risings have been planned for the same date in Liver-pool, Manchester, and Glasgow; whether any seizure of arms and ammunition from Germany has been made by His Majesty's Navy; and whether the Government have any reason to suppose that the German secret service is behind the planned rising?

The PRIME MINISTER: I regret that my hon. Friend should have seen fit to
ask this question, and obviously it would not be in the public interest to answer it.

Mr. MacVEAGH: I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not a well-established rule of this House that any Member putting a question on the Paper should make himself personally responsible for the truth of the statement he puts into it? In view of the mischievous character of this question, I wish to ask you whether there is any means open to this House to compel the hon. and learned Gentleman to disclose the name of the official from whom he got the information?

Mr. EDWARDS: I cannot make a statement. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this information did not come from an official quarter?

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a white blackbird was caught this morning on Hackney Marshes?

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member (Mr. MacVeagh) has correctly stated the general rule of the House. I am not aware of any method by which you can extract information from a Member who is not willing to give it.

Mr. MacVEAGH: As a censorship is very properly exercised at the Table with regard to mischievous questions, may I ask whether that censorship should not have been exercised in the case of a question of this character?

Mr. SPEAKER: As a matter of fact this question was held up. The hon Member was determined to put the question on the Paper, and I have no power of censoring in the sense of Stopping a question.

DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATIVES.

Mr. JELLETT: 78.
asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the activities of the accredited representatives of the Irish republic claiming a diplomatic status in the capitals of certain countries friendly to Great Britain, noticeably in Paris and Washington; and whether, through His Majesty's ambassadors, he will inform the Governments of these countries that the Irish republic is not recognised by His Majesty's Government.

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no reason to suppose that any foreign Government is in ignorance of the political status of Ireland, and representations of the character suggested by the hon. and learned Member are therefore not called for.

POSTAL FACILITIES (BALLYMACILROY, CO. ANTRIM).

Captain CRAIG: 107.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that in the district of Ballymacilroy, near Randalstown, County Antrim, which comprises over 50 families, there is only a three day per week delivery of letters: that great inconvenience is thereby caused to the inhabitants; that the furthest point of this district from Randalstown is only live and a half miles, and the distance from the nearest sub-post office at Whitesides Corner is only four miles; that on the day when there is no delivery the postman reaches Whitesides Corner at 11 o'clock and stays there till three, during which time he has nothing to do; that an hour or an hour and a half would suffice to deliver his letters; and whether, under these circumstances, he will arrange for a daily delivery in this district?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Pike Pease): I am having enquiry made, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

MURDER (LORD MAYOR OF CORK).

Lord ROBERT CECIL: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can give the House any information with regard to the murder of the Lord Mayor of Cork, and particularly whether he can throw any light on the cause of the crime?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. Macpherson): I regret very much that I have no further information to give the House than has appeared in the newspapers.

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask whether it is correct that a number of soldiers, very shortly after the commission of this terrible crime, visited the house, and, in spite of the protest of the bereaved family, insisted on examining the whole premises; and whether that does not give rise to the suspicion that this was meant to destroy the evidence
of the crime?—(HON. MEMBERS; "Shame!" and "Withdraw!"]

Mr. MACPHERSON: I feel sure that the country and the House will resent the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. It is obvious that it is the duty of the Government to go to the scene of any deplorable murder of this kind, but I have no information as to whether the military went there at once or not. If they did, it is obviously a thing they should do. But, before I sit down, I should like to say again it is a monstrous suggestion that soldiers, who were merely obeying a duty, and acting under orders of superior officers, should be condemned in this way by an hon. Member in this House.

Mr. MacVEAGH: It was a police murder.

Mr. O'CONNOR: May I ask if it is legitimate that any body of men should go into a household still suffering the horrible pangs of a murder committed within sight of the family, without that family having any option to admit them or not, or consulting legal opinion?

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is the duty—the painful duty—on many occasions for those who are responsible for law to enter into scenes of this kind. It is very regrettable, but they have got to do it. If they had not done it, the accusation would then have been that because this man happened to be a Sinn Feiner, the Government in Ireland made no attempt to defect the murderers.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why, in this case, the military and not the police authorities were sent to find evidence of the crime?

Mr. MACPHERSON: The hon. Member must remember that a few hours before one of the most respected and gallant officers of the Cork police was murdered.

Mr. CHARLES PALMER: Was it not possible that, if unarmed police had gone there, they would have been shot down like other unarmed police?

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is a fact that the military went there on the orders of the competent military authorities to search the house, and that they searched every room from top to bottom?

Mr. MACPHERSON: I cannot say under whose orders the soldiers went there. They went there, undoubtedly, under orders, I am not surprised that they searched the house. This is a very remarkable and deplorable murder, and it was the duty of the British Government to search every hole and corner of the house where the murder had taken place, in order to find out any sort of evidence which would help them to trace the murderers.

Mr. MacVEAGH: If you had searched the police barracks you would have got the evidence.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREATY OF PEACE.

AUSTRIA.

Sir S. HOARE: 30.
asked when it is proposed to introduce and pass the Bill for the ratification of the Austrian Treaty?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 33.
asked when the exchange of ratifications of the Peace Treaty with Austria by the Austrian, British, French, and Italian Governments, respectively, may be expected?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Treaty has already been ratifed by the Austrian Government and by Italian Royal Decree. The French Government have not yet ratified, and I have no information to show when they will do so. I fear that it will hardly be possible to deal with this matter before Easter.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that the British Government has ratified?

The PRIME MINISTER: We have promised a discussion in the House of Commons.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Shall we have an opportunity of seeing it?

GERMAN GOVERNMENT.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether any Government in Germany which maintains order, undertakes to carry out such terms of the Peace Treaty as are required by the Allied and Associated Powers, and which does not propose to re-establish the Hohenzollern dynasty in Germany will be recognised by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government established in Germany is a question for the German people. The concern of the Allies is to see that, whatever Government there is in Germany, the Peace Treaty is respected.

HUNGARY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has now received information regarding the reported mobilisation of several classes of Hungarian conscripts; and what action is contemplated by His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: When the national army was first formed in August last, men between the ages of 25 and 35 were called up. In December last all men over 25 were released, and service was restricted to those between the ages of 21 and 25, the period for service being two months. The total effectives of the Hungarian army will be limited by the Treaty of Peace. At present they appear to be below the strength which it is proposed to fix.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any truth in the report that some twenty classes have been recently called to the Colours?

The PRIME MINISTER: I believe not.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

NEXT MEETING.

Mr. AUBREY HERBERT: 31.
asked when the Assembly of the League of Nations is to meet?

The PRIME MINISTER: No date has yet been fixed for the meeting of the Assembly of the League of Nations.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it part of the policy of the British Government to press for an early meeting?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should like to confer with my right hon. Friend our representative on the League of Nations before I can answer that question.

Mr. BILLING: Before the right hon. Gentleman does so, will he give the House an opportunity of debating the question of the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is entirely in the hands of the House. There will be a Vote, I understand, and if it is
generally desired that the Vote shall be debated the Government will certainly put it down for discussion.

GERMAN COLONIES MANDATE.

Lord R. CECIL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether under the penultimate paragraph of Article 22 of the Covenant it now falls to the Council of the League to define explicitly the terms of the mandates for those territories which were German colonies before the War; whether such terms have been yet defined; and, if not, whether he, as representing the British Empire, will urge on the Council the desirability of dealing with this subject as soon as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of my Noble Friend's question is that the penultimate paragraph of the Covenant of the League of Nations states that the terms of the mandates for those territories which were German colonies before the War will be defined by the Council of the League, if not previously agreed upon by the members of the League. As regards the remainder of the question, the whole matter is engaging the earnest attention of His Majesty's Government, and I hope before long to be in a position to give my Noble Friend further information in regard to it.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it not true that the mandate for the Tanganyika Territory was agreed upon by the members of the League at the time of the signing of the peace, and when will it be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not believe it was agreed to as a separate thing. There was an agreement entered into with regard to the whole of the German colonies in Africa at the time of the signature of peace.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMYRNA DISTURBANCES.

OFFICIAL COMMISSON (REPORT).

Earl WINTERTON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister if his attention has been called to the fact that a printed memorandum is being circulated to all Members of Parliament containing an account of the occurrences after the Greek landing at Smyrna in May, 1918, supplied by British
eye-witnesses; and whether, in view of the grave allegations contained in this Report, His Majesty's Government will now press the Allied Governments to allow the Report of the official commission of inquiry into these occurrences to be published?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have heard that a pamphlet such as that described has been circulated to Members of Parliament. His Majesty's Government, however, consider it inadvisable to allow the Report of the Commission in question to be published owing to the conditions under which the inquiry was conducted. As the Commission was investigating charges against the Greek Army, the Supreme Council decided that a Greek officer should be allowed to follow the proceedings, but not to vote or take part in the preparation of the Report. The Com mission, however, when it began its inquiries decided not to allow any Greek representative to be present on the ground that Turkish witnesses might be afraid of giving evidence. M Venezelos immediately protested against this proceeding on the ground that it was contrary to the rules of justice in every civilised country that charges should be investigated and witnesses heard without the accused person being allowed to know the charges and the evidence against him. The Supreme Council were of opinion that M. Venezelos's protest was justified, but before it could alter the procedure the inquiry was completed. Inasmuch as it has not been possible to communicate to the Greek Government the evidence against them, upon which the Commission's Report has been based, owing to pledges given to witnesses, the British Government think it inadvisable and unfair to publish the Report itself.

Mr. HERBERT: Are we to understand that the Report is not to be published because it is an impartial report?

The PRIME MINISTER: The reasons have been given by me very fully in my answer.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an impression that atrocities are visited with condemnation only when Christians are the victims, and as that is so, does it not point to the desirability of something being published?

The PRIME MINISTER: That would be a most unfortunate impression, but even Christians are entitled to a fair trial.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 34.
asked whether any progress has been made with the negotiations for the repatriation of German, Austrian, Czech and other prisoners and ex-prisoners from Siberia, and whether the Supreme Council is taking steps to send relief to these men while awaiting tonnage for their repatriation?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: With regard to the first part of the question the hon. and gallant Member for Chelsea was informed on 19th February that the relief and repatriation of ex-enemy prisoners of war was submitted by the Supreme Economic Council to the League of Nations, who have now taken the matter in hand, and His Majesty's Government will render all the assistance they can as soon as concrete proposals are put before them. The answer to part two of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY WORKERS.

Viscount CURZON: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been drawn to the new demands on behalf of the miners and certain classes of railway workers; and whether he will give an assurance that any negotiations that may be carried on by His Majesty's Government will be given the fullest publicity' in order that the country may be kept fully informed as to the facts of the situation?

The PRIME MINISTER: The claims put forward on behalf of the miners are being discussed between the represenatives of the miners and the Coal Controller and representatives of the coal owners. Similarly the railwaymen's claims are to be discussed by the National Wages Board which has been set up by the Minister of Transport. Negotiations would not in many cases be assisted if at every stage the contentions of parties were reduced to rigid statement and became the subject of public comment. Care
will, however, be taken to give full publicity to the facts of the situation when the circumstances render this course expedient and practicable.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

TRADE UNION REGULATIONS.

Mr. MYERS: 36.
asked the Prime Minister if he will circulate the information upon which his several statements have been made to the effect that trade union regulations are preventing the entry of workmen into particular trades and retarding the development of housing schemes; and if he will give the general nature of the regulations and the trade unions involved?

The PRIME MINSTER: I am circulating a very full statement in the OFFICIAL REPOET.

The, following is the statement referred to in the foregoing answer:

Apart from rules as to apprenticeship, the question of the augmentation of the supply of building labour is affected not so much by specific regulations as by adherence to practice and custom. Although it is admitted that there is an insufficiency of apprentices in the building trade, and many ex-service men are available, up to the present the age limits for the admission of apprentices to the building trade have not been altered, and, while agreeing in principle to the training of disabled ex-service men, the building trade unions have more than once definitely refused to consider the admission of any other classes of adults to skilled trades.

At a meeting of the building trade in December, it was suggested, on behalf of the Government, that the shortage of labour might be made up by augmentation and by relaxation of apprentices rules. In their reply to the Government the operatives defined augmentation to mean "recruiting from the ranks of unskilled labour through the raising of the age at which apprenticeship is commenced, and a shortening of the period of time usually insisted upon as necessary for the production of efficient workmen." They go on to state "the operatives' representatives on the Building Trade Re-Settlement and Housing Committee are convinced, after serious thought on the subject, that augmentation or dilution of the labour of the
skilled section of the industry is neither desirable, practicable, nor necessary."

On the 6th February, at a special Conference of the building trades operatives, held at Manchester, the following resolution against dilution was adopted:—

This Conference, after carefully considering the proposal of the Prime Minister to augment building trade labour, expresses its intention to abide loyally by the agreement for the training of disabled sailors and soldiers, but regards any further extension of dilution as being unnecessary, impracticable, and economically unsound; and we hereby resolve to resist the dilution of building trade labour with the utmost strength of our organisasion.

Trade.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)




Years.
Years.



Bricklayers
Apprenticeship not invariable—largely recruited from boy or adult labourers.
16–18
3–5
Average proportion, I apprentice to 3–5 and even more journeymen.


Slaters
Ditto
16
5
Average proportion, I apprentice to 3 journeymen.


Plasterers
Apprenticeship usual for higher grades, but less skilled grades recruited to some extent from labourers.
15–18
5
Average proportion, apprentice to 4 or more journeymen.


Carpenters and Joiners
Apprenticeship usual
14–16
5
Average proportion, I apprentice to 4 journeymen.


Plumbers
Apprenticeship usual except in case of jobbing plumbers in Southern Counties.
14–16
6
Average proportion, I apprentice to 1–2 journeymen.


Painters
Apprenticeship usual for higher grades, but less I apprentice to 4 skilled grades recruited chiefly from labourers.
15–16
5 (Scotland and Ireland 6 years).
Average proportion. journeymen.

Of the crafts enumerated above, the principal shortage is stated to be found in the cases of bricklayers, slaters, and plasterers.

It will be noted that for each of these three crafts recruiting from labourers obtains to a certain extent. It is the opinion of the Government that this practice could be greatly increased with advantage to the progress of house building.

The most important shortage is that of bricklayers, and that is the craft in which

A legal apprenticeship under indenture is sometimes not expressly prescribed by rules—although the plumbers and, in Scotland, the plasterers and slaters do so; but the majority of unions require that a workman shall have worked at his craft from three to six or even more years before becoming a member of the union.

Broadly, the practice of unions may be grouped under the following heads:

(a) Method of training.
(b) Age of commencement.
(c) Duration of training.
(d) Proportion of men under training to journeymen.

The following table shows the general practice on these points in the case of bricklayers, slaters, plasterers, carpenters and joiners, plumbers and painters:—

the age of entrance is highest and the period of training the shortest.

With regard to the training of ex-service men for the building trades, the executives of all the building trade unions, with one exception, have agreed, in principle, to the scheme for training disabled ex-service men. The only exception is the slaters, whose trade is not suitable for disabled men. The local branches of the building trade unions enjoy a large measure of local autonomy, and in some areas and in some trades the
local branches of the unions have objected to training. In a few places this attitude has been justified by the state of employment amongst skilled men, but there have been cases where the excuse docs not hold good. For instance, in London the plumbers have refused to allow disabled men, when trained as plumbers, to be employed in any but an unskilled capacity.

At Bristol the local branch of the Operative Bricklayers' Society have refused to allow men trained as bricklayers to be employed, and elsewhere branches of this Society have objected to men being placed in training as bricklayers.

Local branches of the Carpenters' and Joiners' Society have in some areas refused to co-operate in the training or have obstructed the placing out of trainees. In the case of carpenters and joiners there is good reason to think that explanation and argument will remove the objections.

In the furniture trades the Executives of the Woodworking Unions have agreed in principle to the training of disabled ex-service men, but in several instances the local branches have refused to admit disabled men unless they are counted towards the number of apprentices allowed under local agreements. This has the effect of reducing materially the number of disabled men whom the trade could reasonably be asked to absorb.

MATERIALS (COST).

Sir R. THOMAS: 40.
had given notice of the following Question:—To ask the Prime Minister whether he is now prepared, having regard to the ever-increasing prices of building materials, to regard the building of workmen's dwellings as a war measure and effectively control the prices of materials and the distribution of materials; and whether he is aware that building contractors are afraid of entering into contracts, owing to prices continually soaring, with the result that in a great number of districts building schemes have been indefinitely postponed, and that this state of affairs is creating great social unrest?

Major BREESE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this question, is it not a fact that the increased price of building materials has been caused by the rise in the cost of manufacture?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. As regards the first part, the whole question of the costs and profits made in the production of building materials is now being inquired into by a committee appointed under the Profiteering Act by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. As to the last part of the question, the form of contract being entered into by local authorities provides for adjustments in respect of rise or fall in the cost of material, and I am not aware of building schemes being indefinitely postponed on account of rising prices of materials.

Sir R. THOMAS: When will the findings of this committee be published?

Dr. ADDISON: I hope very soon.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman know that since July last year the price of materials has increased enormously, that, for example, the price of turpentine has increased by 100 per cent., and that since 1914 the price of that commodity has increased by 494 per cent., and that the price of slates—

Mr. SPEAKER: Ministers cannot be expected to carry all those figures in their heads.

Mr. MYERS: In view of the fact that it costs now £100 to purchase the timber which £30 purchased before the War, is it desirable that the Government should sell their stocks of timber to private timber speculators?

Dr. ADDISON: I do not know anything about speculation. No one would rejoice more than I if the price of building materials fell.

Mr. SHORT: Could we not have a system of priority with regard to building materials such as we had during the War in the Ministry of Munitions?

Dr. ADDISON: Large quantities of building materials have been purchased on account for the purposes of housing. To that extent there is priority; otherwise not.

SKILLED LABOUR DEFICIENCY.

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 54
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether, in
view of the fact that the number of apprentices now engaged in the building trade is estimated to be only about one-half that authorised by existing joint working agreements between the unions and employers, and the danger of serious delay resulting in building under the Housing Acts, he will appoint a committee to report what steps should be taken to require employers to make adequate arrangements for recruiting and training skilled labour for the building trade and on wage and other conditions as bearing upon the deficiency; (2) whether he will take steps to ensure that no contracts are let by Government Departments or local authorities to any contractors who fail to employ the maximum number of apprentices agreed on under existing joint working agreements between the unions and the employers?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I have been asked to answer these questions. As stated in answer to a previous question by the hon. Member on the 11th March, the Resettlement Committee of the Joint Industrial Council for the Building Industry is already considering matters connected with apprentices in that industry. In these circumstances I do not anticipate that it will be necessary to appoint a further Committee as suggested, and it would be premature to commit the Government to any particular course pending a decision by the industry itself as to the steps to be taken to give effect to the recommendations already made for increasing the number of apprentices.

Lieut. Colonel GUINNESS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this Resettlement Committee is not hearing evidence in public, nor is there any facility for the general public to know what is going on? In view of the importance of the question, does he not feel that it is necessary to strengthen the hands of those who want to get houses built by allowing this information to be made public?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALBANIA (ITALIAN MILITARY FORCES).

Mr. BETTERTON: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Italian military forces have evacuated Argyrocastro, and,
if so, what precautions are being taken to safeguard the lives and interests of the Albanian population?

Mr. A. HERBERT: 48.
asked whether the Italian troops are retiring from Southern Albania; and whether an official of the League of Nations or British Consuls will be sent to those areas in which outrages upon the Albanians took place in 1914?

The PRIME MINISTER: I can give no information as to the movements of Italian troops. The whole question of Albania is still under consideration by the Peace Conference.

Oral Answers to Questions — MUNITIONS.

MINISTRY (ARCHIVES DEPARTMENT).

Brigadier-General CROFT: 46
asked the Prime Minister (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that grave irregularities have taken place in the Archives Department of the Ministry of Munitions; that the superintendent who called attention to these irregularities has been dismissed; that signed statements by at least eight members of the staff supporting his charges are in the hands of the Ministry: and what steps he proposes to take; (2) whether, in view of a direct conflict of evidence with regard to irregularities in the Archives Department of the Ministry of Munitions, he will publish with the Parliamentary Papers the signed statements of eight members of the staff of the Department which substantiate the charges of Mr. Hankinson, the dismissed superintendent?

Colonel NEWMAN: 89.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether his attention has been called to the fact that evidence supporting the contention of Mr. Hankinson, late superintendent of the Archives Department, is in the possession of the Ministry; and what steps he proposes to take in view of that evidence?

Mr. BILLING: 90.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether, in view of the fact that the superintendent of the Archives Department was superseded to make room for an ex-service man, he will state the name of his successor and also his services in the forces of the Crown?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): The points raised in the first of the questions have already been dealt with in my replies of the 9th and 15th March and in the statement on the Motion for the Adjournment on the 15th. It is not proposed to publish the statements as suggested. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth will recognise that it would be impossible to secure effective reductions in the staff of the Ministry if a precedent of the kind he suggests were established. I am aware of all the evidence available and do not propose to take any further steps in the matter. The superintendent referred to was not superseded to make room for an ex-service man in the same post, but his discharge renders possible the retention of one additional ex-service man in another part of the Ministry. The successor to the late superintendent is Mr. H. L. Durrant, a permanent civil servant, who was classed as medically unfit for active service during the War.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it has been stated by the Ministry that there is no evidence; whether it is not a fact that there are eight signed statements, which the Ministry holds, declaring that this evidence is substantiated; and whether he can now state that the sister of the accused was asked to hold an inquiry into the female staff of that Department?

Mr. KELLAWAY: As I stated, when my hon. and gallant Friend raised this question on the adjournment, there was a difference of opinion amongst different members of the staff there, but whilst we could not form our opinion on one side of the evidence a decision was taken on the whole of the evidence. It is a fact that the sister of the ex-soldier, the discharged soldier against whom certain charges were made by Mr. Hankinson, was sent down when the inquiry was first made to take a statement from the female members of the staff. As Mr. Hankinson objected to that, another inquiry was made, and it confirmed the findings of the first inquiry.

Sir R. COOPER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is primâ facie evidence of corruption in the administration of his Department, and would it not be better to have a straightforward
inquiry into the facts and settle the matter once for all?

Mr. KELLAWAY: A straightforward inquiry was held—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. no!"] The second inquiry confirmed the findings of the first inquiry. I am sure my hon. Friends will sec that it would be impossible to carry out the demobilisation that this House requires if every time a Member of the staff who has influential friends in this House is able to pack the Order Paper with questions.

Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the sister of the accused was requested to, and actually did, take part in the inquiry itself? That is not a bonâ fide inquiry.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I have already said that that was the case. Because of that, another inquiry was held. The staff has been reduced from 25,000 to 6,000. It is not surprising if, in the circumstances, some members whose services are no longer required think they are badly used.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that in this so-called impartial inquiry neither the Superintendent nor his deputy was permitted to be present at the time the inquiry was taken? How could it be just?

Mr. KELLAWAY: My hon. and gallant Friend is only repeating the original question. If the first inquiry was not satisfactory, there was no question as to the second inquiry being properly constituted, and it confirmed the result of the first inquiry.

Brigadier-General CROFT: I beg to give notice, Mr. SPEAKER, that I will call attention to the whole question of the administration of the Ministry of Munitions on the Consolidated Fund Bill.

SURPLUS STORES DISPOSAL.

Mr. C. PALMER: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the allegation of unbusinesslike methods urged against the Ministry of Munitions in disposing of the surplus stocks under its control, he will immediately appoint a small Committee of practical business men of this House to examine into the methods of the Ministry with a view to advising as to the best and speediest
means of dealing with the huge stocks still in hand?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think there is any ground for the suggestion that the Ministry of Munitions is not adopting sound business methods in the disposal of surplus stores. Two Members of this House, both business men, are members of the Disposal Board, of the other members, one is a Civil Servant, the other is a soldier, and the remainder of the Board are practical business men of considerable standing. The Government are not, therefore, prepared to adopt the hon. Member's' suggestion.

Mr. PALMER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it has come to his knowledge that there are seven by-elections pending and that this question is gravely influencing the minds of constituents?

DEPUTY MINISTER.

Sir RICHARD COOPER: 61.
asked the Prime Minister what is the salary of the Deputy Minister of Munitions and when does he propose to appoint a new Minister?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is £1,600, and to the second, that the post is not vacant.

Sir R. COOPER: If the office is not vacant, on what ground is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry made Deputy-Minister, and why in that Department only?

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not in the present as well as in the permanent interests of the country that the Ministry of Munitions should be abolished and the work put under the Board of Trade or some other Department, and thus get rid of a growing scandal?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that question.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (DISABLED SOLDIERS).

Mr. L. LYLE: 83.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the 46 disabled soldiers whose discharges from Woolwich Arsenal were reported to be suspended
have actually been discharged; and whether a number of women are still employed at the Arsenal?

Mr. KELLAWAY: No disabled men whose discharges from Woolwich Arsenal were suspended have actually been discharged. A number of women are still employed, and the question of their substitution is under consideration.

SURPLUS STORES (SALES).

Mr. ROYCE: 87.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether the traction engines, balers, living vans, transporter weighers, baling wire, and spare parts lately used by the Ministry of Agriculture, and for hay and straw baling in the north-eastern area, have been disposed of; and, if so, to whom and in what manner?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The plant in question has been in use by the Forage Department of the War Office, and is being sold as it becomes available for disposal to Mr. B. G. Edgar, of 96A, Kensington High Street, at prices fixed by valuation. Previous to the agreement with Mr. Edgar full opportunity had been given for the purchase of the plant in question on the public market.

Mr. ROYCE: Can the hon. Gentleman inform us why these have not been offered in the usual manner by public auction?

Mr. KELLAWAY: My answer was that previous to agreement full opportunity had been given for the purchase of the plant in question on the public market.

Mr. ROYCE: That is not an answer. I suggested public auction.

Mr. KELLAWAY: I am not sure that part of this was not offered by public auction, but I would want to confirm that before making a definite reply.

SURPLUS WAR STOCKS.

Mr. GRUNDY: 91.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he will supply full information as to the sales of munitions of war and surplus war stocks which have taken or are taking place; the nature of such munitions and stores; and to whom they have been or are being sold both in this country and elsewhere?

Mr. KELLAWAY: It would be impossible within the limits of a Parliamentary
answer to give the information asked for, but I hope to make a statement on the subject when the Munitions Vote is being discussed.

POTASH PRODUCTION BRANCH.

Sir R. COOPER: 93.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if Mr. Arthur Blok, of the potash production branch, is a naturalised subject; and, if so, where was he born and when were his naturalisation papers taken out.

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. As I have already stated, Mr. Arthur Blok is a natural born British subject, and his place of birth was Stoke Newington, London. I strongly deprecate these personal attacks on an officer who has rendered valuable service in Departments of His Majesty's Government both before and throughout the War.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTHONIA.

Lord R. CECIL: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government intends to recognise the State of Esthonia; and, if so, when?

The PRIME MINISTER: No decision has as yet been taken in regard to the de jure recognition of the Esthonian Government.

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not under the consideration of the Government, in view of the fact that the Esthonians have established a more or less stable form of Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: Of course, it is not for us to decide; we shall have to decide in conjunction with our Allies. I do not think it has yet been discussed.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that Italy has recognised Esthonia de jure?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRUSTS.

NEWSPAPER PROFITS.

Mr. WILLIAM SHAW: 52.
asked the Prime Minister what steps, if any, have been taken to inquire into the working of
the newspaper trusts; if he is aware that in one case at least the price of a newspaper has been increased by 200 per cent. since 1914 and that the advertisement rates have in many instances been increased by 200 per cent. reckoned by the line, while the line itself has been reduced by about one-sixth in length; and is he aware that the Associated Newspapers, Limited, increased their dividend on their deferred shares from 12 per cent. in 1914 to 20 per cent. in 1919?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I have been asked to reply. The Standing Committee on Trusts and Trade Combinations has the necessary power and authority to investigate any trust or combination which it considers should be inquired into, and if the Standing Committee on Trusts consider that the matters referred to by my hon. Friend require investigation, the necessary action will no doubt be taken.

Mr. MYERS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the immensely enhanced value of some of these newspapers is due to the fact that they are able to anticipate the intentions of His Majesty's Ministers and the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Oral Answers to Questions — SYRIA.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether in informing the Emir Feisul that the Allied Powers cannot at present recognise the validity of the recent proceedings in Syria, whereby the sovereign independence of Syria has been proclaimed, they have reassured him and the Arabs that the Allied Powers will adhere to the pledges given by the British authorities to King Hussein when the Arabs came into the War with us against the Turks, and also to the joint Anglo-French declaration of November, 1918; and whether he will issue a White Paper setting out the various undertakings and promises given during the War by the British Government to the Arabs?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Emir Feisul was informed that the question of Syria would shortly be examined by the Peace Conference with a view to arriving at a settlement in accord with the declarations that have been exchanged between the British, French and Arab Governments It would not be desirable at the present moment to lay correspondence on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S ROLL OF EMPLOYERS.

Mr. HURD: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether steps are being taken to carry out the the suggestion made some time ago that the King's Roll of Employers should be exhibited in post offices throughout the Country, with special reference to the local firms upon it, with a view to making the scheme better known?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the affirmative. My right hon Friend the Minister of Labour is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General as to the best method of giving effect to this suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOCK CONGESTION (LONDON).

Mr. A. SHAW: 60.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that vessels which arrived in the Thames in January or earlier are still lying with their cargo unloaded; and whether immediate steps will be taken to release such vessels for further voyages?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF SHIPPING (Colonel Leslie Wilson): I have been asked to reply. I am informed that all vessels that arrived in the Thames for discharge and loading in the Docks of the Port of London Authority, in January or earlier, have now completed discharge. One such vessel that was delayed pending discharge of her cargo of meat (s.s. "Port Elliot," arrived 22nd January) completes loading and sails on the 23rd March. The only two other ships that were delayed are now repairing preparatory to further voyages.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (PASSPORTS).

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is still necessary for a British subject to obtain a passport for the purpose of visiting the Channel Islands, and, if so, will he state the reason?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): My hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this question. It is still necessary for passengers to the Channel Islands to
carry passports, but I hope that my consultations with the authorities of the Islands, which are not yet quite concluded, will enable this requirement to be removed very soon.

Oral Answers to Questions — TILLAGE (CONTROLLED LAND).

Major HOWARD: 80.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he will make a statement respecting the land controlled by county councils in Great Britain, giving the total acreage and the estimated acreage under wheat this year?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the land of which the Agricultural Executive Committees are in possession under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, the total area is 32,000 acres, of which 12,000 acres is let to farmers and 20,000 acres is being farmed by the Committee themselves. The Ministry have no information as to the cropping of this land, but inquiries will be made and the result communicated to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW FOREST LIVE STOCK (MOTOR INJURIES).

Sir J. BUTCHER: 81.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture whether he will lay upon the Table of this House the Report of the Inspector appointed by the Board of Agriculture to inquire into the killing and maiming by motor cars of ponies and cattle belonging to commoners in the New Forest; if not, whether he will state what reasons, if any, in the public interest exist against such publication; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent this cruelty and to safeguard the property of the commoners?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Minister is not in agreement with the recommendations made in the Report, and no useful purpose would therefore appear to be served by laying it on the Table.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will my hon. Friend answer the last part of the question—
what steps he proposes to take to prevent this cruelty and to safeguard the property of the Commoners?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: It is, as my hon. Friend knows, an exceedingly difficult matter, but we are considering what practical steps can be taken.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it possible to safeguard 70,000 acres when there are no fences, and when animals lie down in the middle of the road, and especially in darkness?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: My hon. Friend has just pointed out one of the difficulties we have to contend with.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the question of putting up toll bars to regulate the extreme speed of these motor cars?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

REFORMS ACT.

Colonel YATE: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps have been taken by the Government of India to explain to the people the true nature of the Reforms Act and to counteract the misrepresentations that are being circulated throughout the country?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): The best refutation of certain persistent misrepresentations of this Act must clearly be looked for in its working, but in the meantime the careful consultation of non-official opinion in the framing of rules should dispel misunderstanding. The Government of India and the Local Governments are fully alive to the necessity of putting accurate information within the reach of Indian newspapers and are steadily taking measures to explain the Reforms Act and to show the absurdity of the assertions that the constitutional reforms do not confer now and real powers on the representatives of the people.

TRANSPORT FACILITIES (HOMEWAED).

Colonel YATE: 95.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state what steps have been taken by him to remove the shortage of passenger accommodation on homeward-bound steamers from India during the present passenger season before the hot weather sots in?

Mr. FISHER: The matter was taken up some time ago in consultation with the Ministry of Shipping, with the result that the following vessels, taken over from the
German Government, were allocated for homeward passenger traffic this spring, in addition to the shipping ordinarily available:—The Patricia, Adolf Woermann, Alexandra Woermann, Zeppelin, Bremen, Cap Polonio, Berhn, Prinz Ludwig. These vessels are due to sail from India during March and April, and will accommodate 2248 1st class passengers, 1067 2nd class, and 246 3rd class, or a total of 3561 berths. The berthing arrangements, after military requirements have been satisfied, are being entrusted to the shipping agents at Bombay.

Colonel YATE: Has that information been published in India?

Mr. FISHER: I am not certain of that; I will inquire.

GERMANS (REPATRIATION).

Colonel YATE: 96.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he will state how many Germans interned in India during the War have been repatriated, and how many have been exempted from repatriation; and whether the reasons for this exemption have been published in each case?

Mr. FISHER: According to my information, some 1800 Germans have been repatriated during the last few months, of whom about one-third came from British East Africa. As to the rest of the question, inquiry is being made.

ARMY OFFICERS (PENSIONS).

Brigadier - General COCKERILL: 97.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether it is proposed to increase the pensions of retired general and other officers of the Indian Army, as has been done in the case of retired officers of the British, service; and, if so, when this will be done?

Mr. FISHER: The subject is now under consideration in communication with the Government of India, and it is hoped that an announcement will be made shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

TRAVELLING FACILITIES.

Colonel ASHLEY: 103.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether a decision has now been arrived at regarding the provision
of additional travelling facilities by means of half-fare vouchers to men undergoing treatment away from home; and whether, in view of the fact that it is a hardship to disabled men in such circumstances that they can only visit their homes free of cost at infrequent intervals, he will further consider the issue of a free railway ticket every three months instead of once in every six months?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Colonel Sir J. Craig): I cannot make any announcement on this subject, to which further consideration is being given.

Colonel ASHLEY: If I put a question down before the adjournment for Easter can the hon. and gallant Gentleman answer it?

Sir J. CRAIG: I would prefer that it should be put down rather later than that.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUSTON SQUAEE POST OFFICE.

Mr. J. JONES: 106.
asked the Postmaster General whether he has been able to take any steps to improve the conditions at the Euston Square post office; whether any steps have been taken to clean these premises; and whether, having regard to the continued unsatisfactory state of this office, he will now endeavour to secure alternative accommodation?

Mr. PIKE PEASE: Since the date of the hon. Member's last question on this subject, the telegraph delivery work has been transferred from the Euston Square branch office to other offices, with a view to relieving the accommodation for the staff. The premises were cleaned last autumn; and steps are now being taken to redecorate them and to improve the illumination. The possibility of obtaining better accommodation is receiving close attention; but, owing to the character of the property in the neighbourhood, the choice is very limited, and up to the present no suitable premises have been secured.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL LIABILITIES COMMISSION.

Colonel ASHLEY: 108.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider
an Amendment to the regulations of the Civil Liabilities Commission so that disabled men who have capital and who have been trained by the State may be set up in business by an advance of money to buy materials, etc., where, owing to the nature of their disablement, it is difficult to find employment for them; or whether he will undertake that skilled employment shall be found for such men within a reasonable period of the conclusion of training?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I should point out to the hon. and gallant Member that the Government Training Scheme is primarily intended to fit men for skilled employment. An applicant for training in an occupation presumably means to go into service in that occupation, or has prospects which induced him to take that form of training. What is done under the present scheme, as a supplement to the training allowances when the period of training is over, is to help in the provision of tools for the trained man, and that is done up to a limit of £10. I should add that at the end of the period of training the man also receives a sum representing an allowance of 5s. per week which is granted as a bonus for efficiency. Any Amendment to the Regulations of the Civil Liabilities Scheme as suggested would, I fear, involve increased expenditure, and I regret that I am not prepared to consider such an Amendment. As regards the latter part of the Question, I should state that local Technical Advisory Committees decide on the absorptive capacity of trades before admitting men to training, and every possible step is taken to find employment for trainees, but an absolute guarantee can in the nature of things not be given.

Colonel ASHLEY: May I ask whether, as there are a large number of these trained men who cannot find employment, it is any use training them unless they can be guaranteed employment afterwards? Is it not a waste of money?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I will represent that view to the Department.

Mr. ROYCE: How long is a reasonable time to wait for a reply from his Department in the matter of training men?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I will bring that to the notice of the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

POTATOES (EXPORTS FROM IRELAND).

Major O'NEILL: (by Private Notice) asked the Food Controller whether he is aware that, as a result of the Order issued on the 3rd inst. limiting the export of potatoes from Ireland, much loss and inconvenience to farmers and waste of potatoes will be caused owing to the fact that many of the potatoes which are bagged and ready for shipment will go bad; and will he issue instructions postponing the operation of this Order, at least until next month, so as to prevent the loss of a quantity of valuable food?

Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): No Order has been issued by the Ministry of Food limiting the export of potatoes from Ireland.

Major O'NEILL: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, if no Order was issued by his Department, would it not be the natural thing for him to have communicated with the Department of Agriculture (Ireland), so that he could have given some answer in this matter in the House this afternoon?

Mr. PARKER: The reply to that question is that I believe the Irish Department of Agriculture did contemplate issuing such an Order, but the Ministry of Food were opposed to it, so the Order was not issued.

Oral Answers to Questions — STOCKPORT (BYE-ELECTION).

Mr. C. PALMER: (by Private Notice) asked the Homo Secretary whether, in view of the fact that Alderman William O'Brien, at present confined at Wormwood Scrubs under a provision of the Defence of the Realm Act, without any definite charge so far made against him, has been duly nominated as a candidate at the pending Parliamentary Election at Stockport, he will at once issue an order affording Alderman O'Brien facilities for addressing the electors, so that he may not be placed at a disadvantage with the other six candidates, and that the constituents may not be deprived of the opportunity of judging of his fitness to represent them?

Mr. SHORTT: It is the fact that Alder-man O'Brien is confined in Wormwood
Scrubs. It is not proposed to release him for the purpose mentioned.

Mr. PALMER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that this denial of justice under the Defence of the Realm Act is turning the minds of many electors away from constitutional government?

Mr. SHORTT: No.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not a fact that in the analogous case of Mr. John Maclean, he was released in order to contest the Gorbals Division of Glasgow at the General Election, he being in Peterhead Gaol at the time he was nominated, and why is the precedent then set not being followed in this case, especially as Mr. Maclean was tried and Mr. O'Brien was not?

Mr. SHORTT: I am aware of that case.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Then why is there a difference in this case?

Mr. MacVEAGH: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that over 300 Irishmen are now in prison without conviction, without trial, and without even a definite charge being preferred against them, and whether he thinks that is in accordance with the traditions of English justice?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Why is there a difference in the cases of Mr. O'Brien and Mr. John Maclean? May I not have the courtesy of a reply?

Mr. SPEAKER: It is not an urgent matter, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman can give notice of his question.

Mr. BILLING: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the critical situation which has arisen throughout the country in connection with the recognition by local bodies of trade union principles, and further, whether he is aware that this state of affairs has culminated in a lightning strike in the Borough of Hertford of all employés of the Corporation, and if, with a view of not only bringing this strike to an end, but of preventing the occurrence of similar strikes throughout the country, he will state what is the policy of the Government in this connection?

Lieut.-Colonel GILMOUR: I have been asked to answer this question. I am not aware of any critical situation of the kind described. It has been the practice of many local governing bodies for some years to recognise trade unions. I understand that, as the result of a difference between the Hertford Corporation and the trade union, 23 labourers stopped work on Thursday. The Ministry of Labour has been in communication during the past month with the parties, and is endeavouring to secure a settlement. I do not consider that the situation at Hertford demands exceptional measures from the Government.

Mr. BILLING: May I ask the Primo Minister to reply to the definite point as to whether the Government do or do not wish local governing bodies to recognise representations of the Trade Unions, and is he aware that this strike would be settled in half an hour if this question were answered? Is he also aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give notice of that.

Mr. BILLING: On a point of Order. I sent a letter to the Prime Minister at 10, Downing Street at ten o'clock this morning, asking him if he would state the policy of the Government in that connection. It is a definite question of policy, and one which the Prime Minister can answer as to whether he wishes.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must give Parliamentary notice by handing in the question.

Mr. BILLING: If I put a question on the paper, will the Prime Minister give a definite reply, Yes or No?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Prime Minister would be well advised to wait and see the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CILICIA (THREATENED MASSACRE OF ARMENIANS).

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he has any more recent information in regard to the threatened massacres of Armenians at Hedjaz and other parts of Cilicia, and has he any information as to whether the French authorities, within whose spheres some of
these atrocities are threatened, have taken any action?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: My attention was drawn to this report by my Noble Friend the Member for Hitchin (Lord R. Cecil) late this morning. I have asked for immediate inquiries to be made, and if the hon. Member will put down a Private Notice question to-morrow, I shall hope to be able to give him some information.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER: informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the arrest and imprisonment of a Member:

Headquarters,

6th Division.

The Right Honourable The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S.W.1.

Sir,

I have the honour to report that, on the 17th day of March 1920, Mr. John Haynes, M.P. for West Cork, was arrested under a direction issued by me as Competent Military Authority, under the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and was committed to His Majesty's Prison, Cork.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

E. R. STRICKLAND,

Major-General,

Commanding 6th Division,

Competent Military Authority.

Cork.

G.S. 103/185,

6th Division.

18/3/1920.

Mr. MacVEAGH: No trial, even for a Member of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered, "That the Proceedings on the National Health Insurance Bill be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to Standing Committee D: Mr. Munro.

Report to lie upon the table.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. SPEAKER do now leave the Chair."—[Mr. Churchill.]

Colonel Sir JAMES REMNANT: I desire to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words
in the opinion of this House, relatives of those who fell in the War should be allowed to erect monuments of their own choosing over the graves of their fallen relatives, subject to such regulations as to size as may be prescribed by the Imperial War Graves Commission.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Motion is not relevant to Army Estimates. The Vote for the Imperial Graves Commission will be, I am informed, among the Civil Service Votes. It could not be discussed on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates.

Sir J. REMNANT: May I call your attention to the fact that on page 91 of the Army Estimates the whole of the staff of the War Office for the Graves Registration Inquiry is included. That being so, is not my Motion in order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand that the persons referred to are employed in transferring bodies now buried in open spaces to the cemeteries, and that the control then comes into the hands of the Imperial War Graves Commission, the Vote for which will appear among the Civil Service Estimates.

4.0 P.M.

Lord R. CECIL: When we raised this question on the Vote on Account last year, the Secretary of State for War answered and explained that, although the Imperial War Graves Commission was not, strictly speaking, under any Minister, yet, as a matter of practice, he was the Minister who answered. Under these circumstances, I respectfully submit that this question must be relevant to the salary of the Secretary of State, it being part of his duty to answer for the Imperial War Graves Commission. May I
further submit that none of those who are interested in this subject, and there are people who are very profoundly interested in it, could possibly tell that it was going to be put into the Civil Service Estimates. Since the War Minister answered for it last year, we could only move in the Ballot for an opportunity of raising the question on the Estimates which we thought would most likely include the matter. It will be a very great hardship on those who take an interest in this matter if, owing to a new arrangement of the Estimates made by the Government, they are precluded altogether from raising the matter in the House. Nothing would be more disastrous to the reputation and position of this House than that Members should not be in a position to discuss all grievances.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not for a moment say that the question should not be discussed; quite the contrary. The only thing in which I am interested is to see that it is discussed in its proper place, and the proper place is when the Vote for the Imperial War Graves Commission is taken or when the Commission is included in the Vote on Account. It is quite clear that it does not appear among the Army Estimates this year, and it cannot therefore be discussed on a Motion which is limited to the War Office Estimates. When the matter arises, it may well be that the Secretary of State for War will be prepared to answer, but the Noble Lord knows as well as I do that under the Rules of Procedure these things must be discussed in their proper place.

Lord R. CECIL: I bow entirely to what you have been good enough to say, but may I submit, since it is part of the duty of the Secretary of State for War to supervise this Imperial War Graves Commission, it must therefore be in order to discuss the matter on a Vote which raises the salary of the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. SPEAKER: If that were so, every one of the War Office Estimates could be discussed upon the salary of the Secretary of State, and that has been repeatedly held to be improper and impossible. Each matter must be discussed on the Vote relevant to it, and, when the Vote relating to the Imperial War Graves
Commission comes on, it can be discussed, or it can be put down for an allotted day.

Lord R. CECIL: I give notice that I shall ask the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House on Wednesday whether he will arrange somehow or other that we shall have an opportunity of discussing this question in the House.

Sir SAMUEL SCOTT: When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War introduced a Vote on Account the other day, he gave very solid reasons why the Government asked the House to authorise what is apparently a somewhat large expenditure this year upon the Army, and he emphasised the new and various responsibilities, both permanent and temporary, which have been placed upon this country in consequence of the War, but, true to history and true, also, to the traditions of some of the Members of the old Liberal party, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir D. Maclean), in spite of what the Secretary of State for War had said, took upon himself the responsibility of moving an irresponsible reduction of a very large amount. Following, also, the traditions of his party, he thereby placed economy before safety. It must not be forgotten that in 1906 the Government were forced by members of their own party to make big reductions in the Army. As far as I remember, my right hon. Friend the Member for the likeston Division was one of those who took a prominent part. It is quite true that in those days the Government in public scoffed at the warnings of Lord Roberts with regard to the German menace, and no doubt a very large number of Members, the majority of the Members, in this House were of the opinion that there was not a great German menace. We know now how we have suffered through not having listened to Lord Roberts. There may have been some excuse in those pre-War days for hon. Members to move big reductions in the Army, but there is no excuse at the present moment. The Government have been absolutely open and frank with regard to our responsibilities. They have told the House exactly what we have to face and the possible dangers, Therefore those who are endeavouring to reduce our armed forces at the present moment certainly cannot plead ignorance, as they could in pre-War days, of the existing situation.
Whether it is or is not possible to create a joint Imperial General Staff, such as that outlined by my right hon. and gallant Friend, I do not know; that is a matter for the Government to decide; but what I would like to hear from the Government is that they approve of the main principle which underlies our suggestion, and I most strongly urge upon them to lose no time in the creation of some independent joint staff. Whatever staff my right hon. Friend creates, whether it be that outlined or some other form, it must be an entirely independent staff to examine all these great and important problems. The other day, on Naval Estimates, the First Lord, I think it was, forecasted the re-creation of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I would make a suggestion to my right hon. Friend, but only if he does not see his. way clear to form a staff such as has been proposed, and which, I frankly admit, I should prefer to any other form. Failing that, however, I would suggest whether it is not possible to create, in connection with the Committee of Imperial Defence some staff to examine these problems. We know that in pre-War days the Committee of Imperial Defence did great and good work, but now it is completely out of date, and needs a thorough reorganisation. I do not know whether the House is aware that in pre-War days, when the Committee met, Army or Navy experts were only asked to be present to answer questions. They sat there representing their Departments, but they took no part in any discussion.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. Churchill) indicated dissent.

Sir S. SCOTT: My right hon. Friend contradicts me I am only speaking of one or two occasions when I happened to-be present, and then they only spoke when they were asked questions. I asked one of them one day why he said nothing, and he replied, "We are not there to talk but sit and surfer, and, when required, answer questions." However, I naturally defer to what my right hon. Friend says.
I wonder if the House is aware what our responsibilities are with regard to the East. We have at the present moment an Eastern frontier of nearly 4,000 miles. A great portion of this frontier has to be protected against very wild and turbulent tribes, and within that frontier we are directly responsible for the welfare
and the government of many millions of people who speak different languages, who have different customs, who have different tribal prejudices, who have even different religions, and who, in some cases, are used to different forms of government. All the tribes, or the greater part of the tribes, in the wilder portions of the East are well armed and have plenty of ammunition. Not only is that the case, but a great number of these gentlemen look upon war in very much the same way as hon. Members look upon golf. They look upon it as an amusement, a pastime and a sport. It is an everyday matter with them. Therefore, it is not very difficult to stir them up to fight if necessary. Our Indian frontier tribes, as hon. Members know, have recently been more turbulent than ever, though they are quiet now. There has been unrest among the Kurds in Mesopotamia: there has been unrest in Syria, there is unrest in Egypt, and, in fact, we may say that at the present time there is unrest throughout the Eastern world. I notice even in to-day's Press in regard to India that there is an agitation going on trying to stir up the Moslems against this country, on the ground of the Caliphate being destroyed. There are, I am told, and I have no doubt of it, strong influfences at work—whence they come I cannot say and do not know—throughout the Fast, endeavouring to stir up and create unrest, endeavouring to stir up the Eastern natives, both in the Midland and Far East, against the Western nations. If once that flame be allowed to start and to get a big hold, it will spread, not in one place, but throughout the whole of the Eastern Empire.
We have to guard against the possibility of that taking place, and we have not only to have a sufficient force to maintain our authority, to maintain law and order, but we must equally have a co-ordinated military and political policy. Local conditions, as hon. Members know, vary in every place, but, if they vary and if each problem has to be dealt with separately, yet there is only one real method of treating the defence of our Eastern Empire and the defence of the Empire generally, and that is by one solid consistent military policy. At the moment, so far as I know, there is no machinery to achieve that object. We have to take to heart the lessons of the
War, which have cost us so dearly. My right hon. and gallant Friend (Major-General Seely) has on more than one occasion advocated, with the support not only of a large number of Members of this House, but also as I happen to know of some of the best military brains, the creation of a joint Imperial General Staff. There never was a time, to my mind, when the creation of such a staff was more necessary than at the present moment. I have said a few words about our dangers in the East. Let me remind the House that, in almost every case where there are those dangers, the countries are a very long way from Great Britain, and the question of defence, therefore, not only affects the Army, but equally affects the Navy and every other department. In fact, to get an ideal co-operation, you would not only have to have, on your joint Imperial General Staff, representatives of the War Office, the Navy and the Air Force, but I think you would also require representatives from both the India Office and the Foreign Office, and also, if necessary, from the Treasury as well. It is only by the inclusion of representatives from the India Office and the Foreign Office that you can get a full knowledge of the actual future policy of the Government.
Another thing that struck me with regard to the Committee of Imperial Defence, at least at those meetings which I was privileged to attend, was the entire lack of co-ordination between the Army and the Navy. The representatives of either the Army or the Navy, apparently, looked upon every problem from the point of view of their own Departments, and, when asked their opinion, the Army and the Navy representatives generally contradicted each other flatly. That is not a very desirable state of affairs, and there is no reason why it should be continued; but it will be continued unless there is a complete re-organisation of the Committee of Imperial Defence. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, if he cannot see his way to the creation of a general staff, he should press upon the Government that there should be, shall I say, the equivalent of a miniature Versailles attached to the Committee of Imperial Defence, whose duty it would be to examine these problems, to co-ordinate our military policy in accordance with whatever might be the policy of the Government then in power, and to place before the Committee of Imperial
Defence a joint co-ordinated plan, both for general Imperial defence and for local defence—not disjointed one from the other, but as one complete whole. If my right hon. Friend will take that matter up, I am certain that, with his well-known energy, he will carry it through.
I do not know whether my hon. and gallant Friend will approve of my suggestion, but I do say that, even if his suggestion be not adopted, as long as we have something at once we cannot complain. We live in times of unrest throughout the world. We have upon us Very great Imperial responsibilities, even greater than in pre-War days. We have also other commitments, and we have duties to carry out to which we are pledged to the Allies. Hitherto this country has boasted proudly that she has never shirked responsibility, and has never broken her pledge abroad. It would be a very serious thing, to my mind, if this or any other House, in its wisdom, or lack of wisdom, were to force upon the Government a reduction of the forces which they consider to be the minimum necessary for our safety, and if this country were placed in a position of not being able to fulfil her pledges or carry out her responsibilities. We have not reached that millennium yet which was forecasted by some of those who have supported with so much energy the League of Nations. When the League of Nations has quieted, by talk, if they can, our Eastern races, when they have taken away the turbulent spirit from those races—when that millenium arrives, possibly this House may say to the Government, that now, at last, no more troops will be required, and the Army Estimates can be reduced to almost nothing at all; but not till then.

Colonel YATE: I should like to say one word in support of what the hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone has just said with regard to the Committee of Imperial Defence. I can remember giving evidence before it, and seeing all the military and naval officers sitting round the table and not saying a word. The Secretaries of State for India and for Foreign Affairs monopolised the whole of the conversation, and neither the military nor the naval authorities could say a word, nor were they asked to do so. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he gives us a joint Imperial Staff or a new Defence Committee, to let us have a Committee where all would sit on equal terms, and where military and naval
officers would be able to give their views as well as politicians and Secretaries of State. I must confess to a feeling of astonishment at seeing on the Paper today, in the name of one hon. Member on the Liberal Benches on my right a Motion to reduce this vote by 15,000 men, and also in the name of two right hon. Gentlemen on the front Opposition Bench a Motion for a reduction of £15,000,000. Can cither of those Gentlemen have the faintest idea of the dangers that surround this country, and especially the dangers in the East, which the hon. and gallant Member for Marylebone has just dwelt upon so ably? We have two Armies, the British Army and the Indian Army. As regards the British Army, no one can congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State, more than I do, upon the manner in which he has managed to get together a voluntary Army since the date of the Armistice. He has raised a voluntary Army of a certain number of men, and it is wonderful that he has got so many together, considering the enormous number of conscripted men who had to be demobilised. But when we think of that Army, we must remember that those new British battalions are almost all young boys of 19 or so, and that many of those battalions, instead of being 1,000 strong, are only 600 strong, and are going abroad at that strength. Those young soldiers who have just enlisted have not that indefinable spirit which we call esprit de corps, owing to the constant changes of men from battalion to battalion, or from county regiment to county regiment during the war. That spirit has largely to be developed among them, and also the spirit of discipline; and all this requires time. While, therefore, we think of all these battalions of a certain strength, and right good battalions they arc, yet we must remember that, behind them, we have not a single special reserve battalion or militia battalion to provide reserves for them; while as for our second line, the Territorial Force, it has not even yet been commenced. That is the position in which we stand at the present moment, and yet here we have those hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal Benches proposing to reduce the few men we have by 15,000.
The one stand-by that we have at the present time is the Indian Army, and I hope that will be kept even more than usually in view at the present moment. I
would ask the Secretary of State to use his best endeavours to prevent the demobilisation going on now in the Indian Army, because I can assure him that every man we have there will be required. Demobilisation is proceeding in India far too rapidly. There are Indian regiments now in Constantinople, in the Black Sea area, and in Egypt, which have been four and five years abroad, and everyone of those regiments should be immediately sent back to India to their own regimental centre near their own particular homes. Let that be done at once, and let other regiments raised during the War be sent abroad to take their place. We all remember that grand Indian army of 70,000 men who came over at the beginning of the War, and saved the whole situation in the first winter of the War, Almost all those men have now gone. I remember the despairing letters which I received at that time in regard to so many of the men who won V.C.'s, Orders of Merit and Military Medals, because they had not one of them to take back to India as they had all been killed. We have now got a much younger lot of officers in the Indian army, and the great trouble is that the Indian officers when they come home say to me, "Sahib! all our old officers have been killed and gone. We have no officers now who understand us." That state of things takes a long time to remedy, and it is a fact that many battalions have only one pre-war officer, and some of them only two, and it takes a long time for the new officers to learn the language and to learn how to deal with their men.
There must be special sympathy and liberality in the treatment of our Indian army if we are to retain the same loyal army we have had hitherto. For these reasons I hope the Secretary of State for War will see that the Indian army is treated in the best possible way. Already the Indian regiments in Constantinople have done a great service. We have in the East a great danger before us. We have road in the paper of a great agitation amongst the Mahomedan population in India which is being backed up by the men in league with the young Turks, and who have been in correspondence with them. We must not forget that the young Turks brought Turkey into this War, and therefore our policy ought to be to help the Sultan, and enable him to hold his
own against the young Turkish Party who have brought their country to such terrible ruin. We ought to appeal to the Mahomedan soldiers of India to help us to put the Sultan back again into power, and enable him to turn out all the Enver Pashas and so-called Young Turks who have brought the Sultan and his country into such terrible straits. The more we use the Indian troops the more they will help us, and the more they realise the danger of the present state of things in Turkey the more they will see the responsibility we have in the whole of the East at the present moment. The relations of India and' Afghanistan are absolutely bound up in the question of the retention of the Sultan in Turkey. We do not know what is going to happen there, and the Treaty we made with Afghanistan is one of the weakest things we ever did.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is diverting the Debate into a discussion of the Foreign Office and the India Office, which really are topics not connected with the War Office. We are now discussing the War Office Estimates, and the question of our policy and treaties in relation to foreign Powers does not arise to-day.

Colonel YATE: I only desired to point out the danger that faces us in the East, a danger which may come upon us at any moment. I agree that these question are mixed up with foreign policy, but we have to think of the enormous extent of our territory. We have just had a war with Afghanistan, and we do not know when we may have another one. We have also taken over very large responsibilities in Persia, and we have to protect Persia against many forces. One thing I was sorry to see the other day was the announcement of the withdrawal of our Forces on the Persian frontier, because they kept the whole of that country quiet. Only the other day I read in the newspapers an account of how one hundred Bolshevist cavalry attacked some thirteen Indian cavalrymen, who turned upon them and charged them and dispersed them, and they cut through the whole of the Bolshevist cavalry with the loss of only a few men. Look at what happened in the Caspian Sea, where we had a grand naval force. What did the Government do?

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is
the one opportunity afforded for discussing general military topics, and it s inadvisable to diverge into collateral matters. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will bring his mind to bear upon War Office matters generally and discuss those only then he will be in order.

Colonel YATE: My point is that we have to protect the whole of the vast country which I have described. In our Eastern Empire we have an enormous slice of the world under our charge, and to protect it we require a large military force. It stretches from Cairo to the Cape on the South and on the East to Jerusalem, Baghdad, Teheran, Cabul, Peshawur, Delhi, Calcutta, Rangoon, Singapore, and up to China, and we must have sufficient forces to defend our interests in those parts. This duty requires every man we have got in the Army, and we want to strengthen our forces rather than reduce the numbers. I want to enter my protest against this proposal to reduce our Army. We want all the men we can get to protect our interests at the present moment. I hope the House will vote against any reduction of our forces, and in every endeavour made by the right hon. Gentleman to strengthen our forces I hope we shall give him every support that is possible.

Major-General Sir JOHN DAVIDSON: The words which have fallen from the two hon. and gallant Gentlemen who have just spoken are of very great importance, more especially in reference to the establishment of some advisory body in regard to this question of defence. I think it is time we reached some finality in this matter without any further delay. I want to investigate this question, because we have been fortunate in having the opinion expressed here of four right hon. Gentlemen who have had very considerable experience in this matter, and if the House will permit me I propose to quote certain extracts from their speeches. We can then put them altogether and see what their views are and try and get some finality in the matter, because there is not much difference of opinion between the four of them. The Secretary of State for War, speaking last December in this House, said:
These are very revolutionary ideas, and progress towards them can only be made gradually; but progress towards them must be continued, and nothing must be done in reconstructing the Air Perce which in any
way conflicts with the final system to which we will certainly be drawn by logic, by economic and by war efficiency, and, in fact, by everything except existing vested interests, namely, a combined general Imperial War Staff for the three Services, actuating and operating under single control."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,15th December, 1919, col. 55, vol. 123.]
It will be seen that the right Gentleman thinks it is necessary and essential to co-ordinate the three Services The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ilkeston (Brig.-General Seely), the late Air Minister, said:
It is quite clear that the right hon. Gentleman wants the Committee of Imperial Defence enlarged so as to form the necessary council to perform the duties which some advisory body would perform.
Two or three days ago the First Lord of the Admiralty, speaking on this question, said:
My own opinion, which I give now, as I have given it before, would be that no alterations should be made in that Committee in the direction of increasing the number of its members. I would rather see the numbers reduced than increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March. 1920. col. 2446, vol. 126.]
Then he goes on to say:
We are extremely anxious also that apart from, or in addition to, the Committee of imperial Defence, which is a body of Ministers and experts, there should be a definite arrangement under which the staffs of the great fighting Departments should meet regunlarly for consultation and work out a common policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1920, cols. 2447–8, vol. 126.]
I gather from that that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not in favour of a Ministry of Defence, nor is he in favour of increasing the scope of the Imperial Defence Committee, but he would like to see some regular co-ordination of the three services. Then the right hon. Gentleman for Paisley (Mr. Asquith) said,
I associate myself with both the hon. gentlemen in deprecating the creation of an executive Minister of Defence who would be over the Army, and Navy, and the Air Service in such a way that they would be, or intended to be, subordinate bodies…. The Imperial Defence Committee was never intended to be an executive body. I must express my earnest hope after a long experience in peace time that the work of this Committee will be resumed…. The great thing is to maintain elasticity in the composition of the Committee."—[OFFICAL. REPORT, 18th March, 1920, cols. 2448–50, vol. 126.]
Those four opinions I now propose to analyse. They resolve themselves into two points. The first is that no responsible
person is pressing for a Defence Committee at the present moment, and so we may relegate that point to the background. The second point is the necessity for a greater co-ordination for the defence forces in the Empire. But on this there is a "divergence of view as to the method of achieving that end. I just want to note these points before we put the Defence Ministry aside altogether. It is evident that the Secretary of State for War is rather inclined towards it. I believe a great many who are qualified to express an opinion on the subject are also inclined towards it Personally, my view is that the time is not ripe for such a Ministry. I believe in course of time we shall probably have a reorganisation of the machinery of government, and we could then have, for instance, a Defence Ministry with three Under-Secretaries for the Air, Navy, and Land respectively, and perhaps a Commonwealth Ministry with a Secretary of State and Under-Secretaries for the various outlying parts of the Empire. Probably this will be the way in which a solution will come about in these difficulties in the future. The time, however, is not ripe for this.
As regards a better organisation of defence within the Empire, everyone who has spoken on the subject agrees as to the necessity for it. There seems, however, to be a difference of opinion with regard to the Navy. Some go in for the Committee of Imperial Defence. Others go for a Joint Imperial General Staff. One of the four favours a combination of the two. I do not think that there is any great difficulty in the matter, and I should like to run through the speeches of these right hon. Gentlemen and see some way, if possible, in which steps can be taken so as to get something done. They all realise that this body, whatever, it is called, must not have executive power, but have advisory functions only; and that is perfectly true. Everybody is agreed on that. They all realise, I think, that the Navy, Military, and Air experts must meet. The First Lord suggested that they should meet in an informal sort of way as they met before the War. That would be perfectly useless. I know quite well that when I was at the War Office it was perfectly valueless having people meet occasionally. They must meet in permanent session—that is essential!
Another point is they must put forth their recommendations as a body, and get the recognition of the Cabinet, though they would have no executive control or authority. So far as I am concerned, I do not care a jot whether it is a Committee of Imperial Defence or a Joint Imperial General Staff. They are one and the same thing, provided they have their proper functions conducted in a proper manner: that is to say, their Military, Naval and Air experts all sitting in permanent session; and not only that, but the representatives of the Dominions and of India also sitting as a Joint Advisory Committee. I would impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, if he has any power in the matter, to press for the establishment of a body without further delay. There is no difference of opinion in this House, or outside, as to the necessity for this, or that the establishment of this body is essential. Firstly, owing to the special needs of economy and efficiency at the present moment. Secondly, owing to the great future developments in material—on which everybody is agreed. Thirdly, owing to our largely increased responsi
I was very much interested in the remarks of the hon. Member who spoke just before mo (Colonel Yate) as to our responsibilities in the East. These are very heavy indeed. I am perfectly convinced of this, that they are not realised in the least bit outside this House amongst the public. They may be, and probably are, realised fully by the Government; but I doubt whether they are fully realised by a great many Members of this House. What are the facts of the case? In 1919 we had an expenditure of £4,05,000,000 on the Army. In 1020 we are estimating for £125,000,000. According to a White Paper issued last year, a normal year's Army expenditure is £60,000,000. I am convinced throughout the country there will be a clamour to reduce the £125,000,000 to £60,000,000—next year's Estimate. It is absolutely impossible, without running risks of disaster all over the world, and especially in the East, to lower it. The demand for lessened expenditure will be increasingly insistent—of that I am perfectly convinced. We shall have to fight to prevent it being carried out. So far as I can make out, the Near and the Middle East is practically the chief theatre where we can make any radical reduction. It
is there that a great effort will be made to reduce our expenditure, and it is particularly there, to my mind, where the chief danger lies. It must be remembered that before the war we were really an island Power. India was to some extent—indeed to a very large extent—protected by her enormous boundaries. To-day we have a land frontier in the East, the Middle East, the Near East, and Asiatic, of over 4,500 miles. That is not a responsibility to be lightly taken by any country, and especially over countries thickly populated, where the inhabitants are more or less restless, demanding emancipation, turbulent, or, it may be, openly hostile, and where race, religion, and caste accentuate our difficulties and dangers.
India has been mentioned. No one can look upon the situation there with equanimity. On the North West frontier we have had more trouble in the last two months than for many years past; and with possible Russian influence behind the Afghans we may look forward to a continued period of activity on that frontier. Passing on again to the West, I think we may expect to have some difficulty with Afghanistan. Why we should have given up control there, and in the same breath done as we have done in Persia, I fail to understand. Leaving these two countries, whose affairs, perhaps, come more under the head of foreign policy than that of the Army, and making further westward we come to Mesopotamia. It is true that a reduction is sought there in our Forces. In order to obtain that reduction the right hon. Gentleman has, I think, rightly put it to the Air Ministry to ascertain what the cost would be of looking after that country from the air-point of view, and so see whether any reduction can be made, and if so, to what extent. But the ordinary principle of the occupation of a country, upon which we have always worked, has been that of getting the British character into contact with the natives, and so bringing about that moral superiority which counts. There is the danger in the air-control of the country in losing sight of this, for that superiority very largely rests upon high explosives, bombing, and so on. There is a danger in this regard against which we require carefully to guard ourselves. To the North of Mesopotamia it is likely there will be most trouble. We have to
consider who is in possession of Anatolia. There are sufficient difficulties as it is, without any more. I, however, view the situation in Syria with probably most alarm. I am not going into details which would not serve any good purpose. But the facts cannot be overlooked in the consideration of our military expenditure. Then consider the unrest in Egypt, We have been told that the guns of our fleet are trained on Constantinople, that our troops are in control of the city, and, that therefore Turkey can be looked after. I do not believe it for one moment. I do not believe that the troops under Mustapha Kemal in Anatolia care anything for our occupation of Constantinople. I myself see no reduction in this area. Our dangers are increased by growing anti-Westernism and by a lack of coordinated policy. I see no reduction of expenditure in this area for some time to come. We have got to be extremely careful how we handle the situation. The Prime Minister only the other day said that our internal structure is top heavy, and if we were to make a serious mistake anywhere, it would come down with a greater crash than in any other country.
Out of all that I have endeavoured to say, two points emerge quite clearly. The first is the urgent necessity for a Defence Committee or Staff of the three services to be established at once. I do not myself believe that any Government or any individual of a Government has the right to assume these enormous responsibilities without this combined expert advice of which I have spoken. The sooner this body is in being the better. Secondly, as to the great danger of reducing our forces in the East. I have tried to labour that point to make it quite clear where that danger most probably lies and of what it consists. I venture to suggest that every Member of this House should talk on this Subject in his constituency, and it would be a good thing for the country, the Empire, and the world.
5.0 P.M.
Just one small matter upon which I should like to touch—small, but important in its way. I refer to the question of the Yeomanry. I understand that the General Staff has got a scheme showing that certain Yeomanry regiments are to be retained, and that others which do not fulfil the requirements are to be changed. I understand the right hon. Gentleman
was most anxious to carry out the projected scheme, but because of the feeling in the country amongst the Yeomanry, agreed that it should not be carried out. That is a weak policy. If the Yeomanry are in existence for two years only they will probably get no recruits, and what will be the situation at the end of that time? I attended a meeting on Friday of the Territorial Forces Association in my own county. The Hampshire Carabineers I found had converted themselves into two batteries of Field Artillery. I have not such a poor idea of the people of this country as that if you only tell them what is really required they will not come up to the scratch. They must, of course, have their grievance, and probably they will grouse. Eventually, however, they will come up to the scratch. I shall be very grateful to the right, hon. Gentleman when he speaks if he will give us assurances on the subject of this Committee of Imperial Defence, or whatever it is to be called.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I only wish to speak for two minutes on the question of this Joint Advisory Committee to produce co-operation between the sea, land and air forces. I should like to disabuse the mind of anybody who thinks that naval people are adverse to establishing some such Board. I can assure them there is nothing further from the minds of naval officers. Every sane man knows that there must be co-operation in war, and they are most desirous to see such a body set up. The only thing the First Lord of the Admiralty took exception to the other night, was to leaving the administration of the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force in the hands of one man only. The right hon. Gentleman was not adverse at all to a Joint Board, or anything of that sort; his was simply an aversion to the danger of leaving the administration of all three forces to the idiosyncracies and prejudices of one man, and he had behind him in that idea the whole force of the Navy. It is no use individual Members putting forward different suggestions, and I would suggest that the best way to arrive at the proper means of obtaining co-operation is to set up a Select Committee of this House to thoroughly thrash out the matter and to make proposals to the Government.

Brigadier - General COCKERILL: I only rise to reinforce the argument of hon. Members who have spoken as to the military responsibilities of this country, and the necessity for improved machinery for the co-ordination of the various services. I do not think that in the statement the House has listened to with such interest from the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir J. Davidson), the whole responsibility which the country has undertaken was stated as fully as it might have been. I do not know whether the House and the country have given their attention to the responsibilities which we have undertaken in the new Treaty of Peace in connection with the League of Nations. I do not know whether the House realises at all to what extent we stand committed. I notice in the Estimates that the regular forces proposed—the British Army—are only 20,000 in excess of what were deemed to be necessary in the years immediately preceding the War. I am talking, of course, of combatant forces. The number of combatants befor the War, infantry, artillery, engineers and cavalry was 150,000 men, a force by no means too strong in view of the responsibilities which this country had upon its shoulders. To-day provision is being made for only 170,000 men of all arms.
In the League of Nations this country is not merely undertaking to respect but also to preserve against external aggression the territorial integrity and existing political independence of all members of the League. Every country which may join that League is to have its territorial integrity and its existing political independence guaranteed. I confess that, when I find the Congress of the United States of America talking of making reservations I am inclined to think the course they have adopted is one that might well be imitated in this country. The second guarantee is that if any Member of the League resorts to war in disregard of its covenants, the other Members of the League undertake to sever all trading and financial relations, and even personal relations, with its nationals. This cannot possibly be undertaken except with a reserve of military force behind it. It is a very serious undertaking, and then, over and above that, there is the military undertaking of this country as a Mandatory
of the League. I need not remind the House that here we undertake the tutelage of peoples not able to stand alone under the strenuous conditions of the modern world. I am not saying one word against the League of Nations. I am merely endeavouring to indicate to the House what our responsibilities will be under it. If, and when, we accede to that League we shall be undertaking the integrity of these various countries who join with us, and also the tutelage of the peoples allotted to our care. These areas will include Mesopotamia and peoples inhabiting vast stretches of territory in East, West and South-West Africa. There is, indeed, scarcely a quarter of the globe in which either the British Empire or the Great Dominions which form part of it have not received under mandatories accessions of territory over which they must exercise control, ultimately by means of military force. I do not think I need remind the House that diplomacy ultimately rests upon military force. I was amazed to hear from some hon. Members a night or two ago the suggestion that all you have to do is to pursue a peaceful policy and then you can ensure peace for all time. That story has been told again and again, but the whole history of the world shows it to be false. The same thing was said in 1701 when the defenceless position of this country directly led to war; it was said again in 1783, and some of us believe it might also have been said in regard to the regrettable outbreak of the devastating War of 1914. These are some of the additional undertakings which now rest upon this country.
With regard to the machinery which is necessary, as I think, and as most Service Members of this House think, to set up it should be of two kinds. There is first of will the large question of offensive and defensive policy. They are questions of military policy—and I use the term "military" in the sense of including the Navy and the Air Force as well—these are large questions of policy, and it seems to me that the revival of the Committee of Imperial Defence, with the addition of Members competent to speak for India and the Dominions, would be the best way of providing for the discussion of these large questions of offensive and defensive policy.
But behind that what we have in view is a discussion of the joint use of the Fleet, the Army and the Air Force the joint use in war and preparation for their joint use in peace preparatory to war. It is in regard to that that the Committee of Imperial Defence lately constituted gives us no assistance. I heartily agree with my hon. and gallant Friend opposite that we care not whether the machinery takes the form of a Sub-committee of Imperial Defence or a separate organisation. What we do feel to be necessary is that it should be something more than an interchange of ideas between the General Staffs. There must be some permanent nucleus around which this interchange of ideas can take place, a nucleus in the form of a Secretariat which would discuss and come to conclusions as to what action is necessary to be taken. I may say that before I left the War Office nearly eighteen months ago there were already in existence one or two combined committees of the General Staff, particularly in regard to wireless telegraphy, this later developing into a Department of Communication within the Empire. What we seek is the extension of that principle through every branch of the combined Services. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend, and I agree also with the right hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), that there is an immediate necessity for the creation of that machinery, and I foresee no obstacle either from public opinion or from opinion in this House to its immediate creation.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I feel some little temerity in rising to speak after distinguished Members of the Military and Naval Forces, but I rise as an ordinary Member of this House to say something upon this question of the training and co-ordination of our forces for Imperial Defence purposes—a point which has been discussed by nearly every speaker this afternoon. But before dealing with that point I feel, as must any ordinary Member of this House, that in these discussions on the Army Estimates, it is only right that someone should voice, in a straightforward way, our opinion as to the manner in which the War Office has, in so short a space of time, put the Army once more on a completely voluntary basis. Congratulations have been offered on that to the Minister and his associates, but I desire particularly to take this opportunity of paying a special tribute to one but for whose almost
heroic work the efforts of the Minister for War could not have been carried out. I refer to the Adjutant-General. The work of the Adjutant-General and his Department during the last year has been really one of the most remarkable performances of an officer or Department in the history of the British Empire, and I would like to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to Sir George Macdonogh and the officers associated with him in recruiting the voluntary Army, and in carrying out the gigantic work of demobilising over three millions of men with extraordinarily few hitches and with an extraordinary degree of satisfaction to hon. Members in all quarters of the House.
I wish to say something next on the question of this Joint Imperial Defence Staff. It seems to me that the new commitments of Great Britain and her Allies in connection with the League of Nations, and in regard to mandatory territories, make it essential that we should have a new organisation under the Secretary for War for advising and preparing for the strategic and tactical defence of these new areas. Under the Covenant of the League of Nations we have undertaken to assist other members of the League in all parts of the world if they are attacked. That means that the General Staff of this country must have at its disposal a far greater sum of knowledge and experience, not merely of recent mechanical developments of warfare, but of strategic and economic conditions all over the world. That cannot be done with the small staff college for which we are asked to vote. The root basis of the whole thing is the staff college. It is where your highest officers, your commanders-in-chief, your chiefs of staff and your directors of military operations are trained There is no good in having a co-ordinating body of your most distinguished Naval, Military and Air Force officers unless in their early days they are trained at a joint staff college and learn something even if it is a little about the other's business and strategy and tactics of defence from the universal point of view. In future we are going to take on responsibilities to the League of Nations for the defence of Mesopotamia. We are going to undertake the gigantic task of restoring to production the 14,000,000 acres that once formed part of the cultivable area of Mesopotamia
which was once the granary of the world, but now, owing to man's destructive zeal, has become a desert.
If that is to be done—and to ensure us peace it should be done—it is absolutely essential that British officers who are entrusted by Parliament with the task of maintaining order within those frontiers should have a training at a Staff College, which will give them a knowledge of the use of the Air Force, the Naval Force, and the Military Force, I go further, and say that in future military officers, especially those in the higher ranks, who are going to fulfil these great obligations under the League of Nations, cannot circumscribe their outlook to a purely military or a purely defensive outlook. They have got to get from the immediate military outlook the actual problems of tactics and the use of military forces to the widest outlook in regard to all forms of defence. Further, there is no use in sending large bodies of men to countries like Mesopotamia unless they can take into consideration some elements, at any rate, of the economic and political factors if countries of this kind, and it is essential in the new Staff College, which I hope we are going to get as a basis of the new coordinated General Staff, that the British Foreign Office and the India Office may send men who will do, as it were, postgraduate courses, at this joint Staff College, in reference to the considerations of the defence and of the responsibilities of the British Empire, so that all the best brains will be put into a common stock in dealing with the common problem of defence and development both amongst civil and military officers.
I would like to refer to the necessity for co-ordination between the Indian Army and the British Army. We see in these Estimates large sums of money for Indian troops in Palestine, Egypt, Mesopotamia and Constantinople, and I know that in the Indian Estimate as a result of these Estimates there are sums for equally large bodies of British troops who are serving in India. I think that more should be done to co-ordinate the work of the General Staff in India with that of the General Staff in Whitehall, because now that the East has been brought to the West by these new responsibilities in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Palestine, and Arabia, and Simla and Whitehall have a new area of responsibility, it is absolutely essential that the
War Authorities, the Defence Authorities, in Simla and Whitehall should henceforth work in the closest possible co-ordination.
On those questions I desire to draw attention in regard to the areas in the Middle East. On page 14 we are to budget for approximately £4,500,000 for our responsibilities in Palestine and £16,000,000 for our responsibilities in Mesopotamia, but in those two very large sums there is an item of nearly £1,000,000 for Palestine and one of £6,000,000 for Mesopotamia, both under the heading "Other Expenditure." I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to tell us what this other expenditure of £6,000,000 in Mesopotamia means. It is important when we are asked in the country to justify these Army Estimates, as I believe they can be justified, that a big item like £6,000,000 for Mesopotamia should be fully and carefully explained to the House. But in the presentation of these Estimates there is an even more remarkable blank. That is the blank on page 97. Hon M embers will see under heading "Terminal and miscellaneous charges and receipts" a series of pages dealing with various items. Those from page 98 onwards to the end of head 6 are carefully itemised and explained, but on the first page there is the gross sum of £41,673,000 and a net sum of £23,000,000, of which there is no explanation. It is important that we should have some explanation of how these figures are arrived at. I have been through these Estimates, and can find no explanation, except that I see that under the heading in connection with the Near and Middle East, there is a reference which I cannot find anywhere else. It is at the bottom of page 13. In dealing with this particular item of the Middle East, where, no doubt, a considerable portion of this expenditure has been incurred, I would ask the Financial Secretary whether he would submit to the House definite budgets for the occupied enemy territories of Palestine and Mesopotamia, respectively. It is important that we should know exactly what revenue is being collected by the military authorities in both countries, and what is the expenditure on the quasi civil administration and development of the country. The House would not only be interested, but I am sure that it will assist the Government, because I believe that in
regard to Palestine the people of this country realise that they are going to be asked to undertake a great trust for civilisation, and also that the development of Mesopotamia is one of the things which must be looked to to reduce prices and increase the produce of the world, but they do not wish things to be done without their knowledge. The British taxpayer is committed to large expenditure on public works, railways, canals, irrigation and the like, and he should know exactly what money the War Office is spending.
Are any steps being taken by the War Office to co-ordinate responsibility in the Middle East, because the other day I asked why a battalion of Indian troops was being kept at Adana. I asked the Secretary of State for India, as I thought that he was the right person, and the question was answered by the Foreign Office. Is it the Secretary of State for War or the Government of India who is keeping that battalion there? Further, there is the difficulty that the naval policy of the Red Sea from Suez down to Aden is under the Commander-in-Chief of the East Indies, who takes his directions from Simla and down the Red Sea the military take their instructions from the War Office here. There; is complete overlapping. The naval forces in the Red Sea, I gather, are under India and the military forces are under the War Office here. Aden is under India, and there is no Vote in the Estimate with regard to Aden, but there are Votes with regard to Mesopotamia, Egypt, Sudan and Palestine. The Vote for Somaliland is on the Vote for the Colonial Office. They are all part of one defence problem. The lack of co-ordination in regard to the bridge of British Empire between Asia and Europe is chaotic. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will, at the earliest possible moment, give us information from the defensive point of view and the political point of view of the control of the whole Middle Eastern area.
We shall have the Colonial Office, the Foreign Office, the War office the India Office and the Admiralty, all with their own ideas, and no real co-ordination in regard to the Near East in any particular. That always ends in expense. It always ends in battalions getting into places where they are forgotten. It always ends in ships being laid up and forgotten, and it means further increases of garrison. If
the defence of each one of these places was regarded as an end in itself: if the defence of Egypt is to be regarded as a thing in itself, of Palestine as a thing in itself, of Mesopotamia as a thing in itself, we shall have large and expensive garrisons in each of these places, whereas the whole point should be working up for the purpose of reducing the garrisons in the Middle East to the minimum necessary for the protection of frontiers, and the guardianship of law and order; in fact, working up to a single defence policy under a single head, with its necessary bases, reserves, supplies and the rest of it. So far as I can see from these Estimates, that has not yet been done, it is essential that at the earliest possible moment the War Office should consult with the India Office, the Colonial Office and the Foreign Office in order to get the whole of the Near and Middle Eastern situation put upon the most economic and the soundest basis, because the war clouds are all around us in the Near and Middle East. Anything can happen at any time. The reason very largely is the delay in making peace with Turkey. That question would be irrelevant in this Debate, because we are only discussing how far the right hon. Gentleman has carried out his responsibilities. He is not responsible for policy there. That rests with the Peace Conference. All we can say is, "Have you, in view of these delays, in view of this regrettable absence of policy in the Middle East, made sufficient provision, or have you made too much provision in regard to the forces in the Near and Middle East? "
Looking through these Estimates, I say, without fear of contradiction, knowing these countries, that these Estimates, in so far as they provide garrisons for the Near and Middle East, so far from being swollen or extravagant, seem to my lay mind to be on extremely economical lines, because, as I have said, anything may happen out there. There are masses of arms in all those countries. The writs of no one Republic and of no one country seem to run very far out there. There are too many parties out to get all they can from the situation, which is bordering on anarchy on the frontiers of Mesopotamia. We have had during the last six months five or six British political officers killed in the Kurdish mountains. I hope the British authorities will say to our
Allies frankly: "We will do our best for civilisation to bring these rich territories into development, and to restore peace to these troubled countries, but we cannot go too far." I hope we shall not attempt to take up more than we can chew. I say that very emphatically in regard to Northern Mesopotamia. The problem there is that north of Mesopotamia you have the Caldeans, the Armenians, the Assyrians, and all sorts of small people whose very existence is being threatened by warlike tribes and by anarchy at the present time, and there is a great temptation for us to go to their rescue. Let us supply them with arms and the means of self-defence, but do not let us make promises to them unless we are prepared to send the necessary military force to them to protect them. I should like to know whether it is definitely decided—I hope it has been so decided—that for the present the British shall stay in Batum. There the Georgians and the Armenians and others all want us to stay. They are anxious that even a small British garrison should remain as a guarantee that the anarchy which is taking place in the neighbouring countries will not break out there. We can do useful work for civilisation and for the settlement of peaceful conditions in the Middle East by retaining our garrison at Batum.
In regard to what one of my hon. Friends said as to Mesopotamia, the Northern frontier is going to be an anxiety to the British Empire and to the League of Nations for many years to come; but I hope we shall be able to reduce the garrison, which is still a pretty large one to its minimum. The only way that can be done is by following the Turkish policy in that country. The Turks, though they are a great military people, had little real hold on these Kurdish Mountains. Their policy was to hold the market towns, and sooner or later the tribes had to come to get their clothes and all the things they required from the market towns, and to sell their surplus produce. There was no effort at military occupation of the hill country, and I hope until the country has settled down and the arms have been in some measure collected and there is something a little more like peace and order in these unruly regions, that we shall content ourselves with holding and developing and restoring peace and order in the market towns. It will be necessary to
have a small striking force, and I think that a force of light cars would be best suited to the circumstances. Throughout the whole of the Senussi campaign the light car was used, with infantry and cavalry, but the infantry and cavalry proved superfluous. We could have done the whole thing with light cars on the hard-going desert. The light car in that country, for police purposes and the protection of the frontier is an economical and desirable thing, because in these unruly countries it is very important to keep your necessary police force as concentrated as possible. A great display of military force only tends to excite antagonism. The smaller you can keep your garrison in Mesopotamia, the more chance you have of the country and its frontiers settling down. If, when trouble breaks out, you have a small striking force to deal rapidly and quickly with an outbreak, it is far better than a great parade, a great démarche of cavalry and infantry with troop trains rolling on.
In these parts, which I know pretty well, the essential thing in your military force, as in your civil administration, is that everything depends upon quality and very little on quantity. If you get the staff college trained officer with the widest possible outlook as regards his duties, and if you get a real co-ordinated system of control throughout the Middle East, and above all, if you can reduce your garrison to the minimum, I believe the country will settle down to helpful co-operation between the Arab people and the British people for that protection, well-being and prosperity which is much needed by a sorely-stricken world, and a world which is short of the goods which these countries can supply in abundance. If you do that, if your military policy is dictated in that spirit, and if you co-ordinate your system, I believe these countries will settle down. The present situation, however, is most serious, and I hope we may receive a reassuring reply from the Secretary of State for War.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: I am afraid I shall break into the harmony which has prevailed up till now. Every speaker has been quite prepared to continue spending more money upon the Army and has been advising the Secretary of Stats for War as to the best manner of utilising the Army. One or two hon. Members have taken exception to a notice of Motion
asking for a reduction of men and money. After listening to the Debate this afternoon, one's mind is carried back to the early days of the War, the speeches delivered by gentlemen on both Front Benches, and also to speeches that have been delivered by hon. and right hon. Members of this House. We went into the War with the great battle cry that we must enter it to end war and to end militarism. Yet sixteen months after the Armistice we have a vote of money, exceptional in amount, for armies larger than we had in the pre-war period. Do we realise how the country responded to the appeals that were made at that time, and how when the War had finished everyone looked for the early return of those dear to them who were in the Army? Do hon. and right hon. Members realise that the great body of workers of this country have a horrible detestation of war, and that we are up against any inflated armaments and against the voting of more money for the prosecution of slaupghter, either in the Near, the Far or the Middle East? They must realise that amongst the working people of this country there is a desire to put an end to the military system not only abroad but in our own country
A curious feature of this Debate is that hon. Members desire that the officers should be better trained, and that more money should be spent upon the training colleges. If we are going to have an army why should we have training colleges merely for one class? We have the training college at Sandhurst. Can a boiler-maker go there to be trained for the Army if he chooses? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Yes, if he pays the fees.

Major Earl WINTERTON: If he pass the examination.

Mr. MACLEAN: Which is practically a university examination. I ask whether a working man with the education received in an ordinary school attended by the working classes can pass these examinations.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If he goes to a secondary school.

Mr. MACLEAN: If he attends night classes; if he attends a technical college, and goes through a preliminary examination. If you are going to have an Army, let every man enter the Army as a private, and let the Army provide schools for all.
Let it be a democratic Army. That would not satisfy hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. They are prepared to keep the officer class as a class for the privileged, whilst the workers must go into the ranks and rise to be sergeants, class privilege again prevailing in the new Army. That is the sequel to the other Army that went out to make the world safe for democracy everywhere but in the Army. In the two finest armies we have on record in history, Napoleon's army and Cromwell's, the most brilliant marshals and generals were tradesmen and artisans, men who had worked at their trade, men who had worked as bricklayers and who rose to the highest positions, and they were able to defeat men who had made warfare their trade during the whole of their lifetime.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: What about Sir William Robertson?

Mr. MACLEAN: There are a few exceptions, but they prove the rule, that in the ranks of the workers you can find men who, at least, equal the glory and the brilliance of officers who come from the other class. Then why not widen the scope? Why not throw it open to everyone who comes in if you are going to have an Army? I hope if we put an Amendment down hon. Members will support it.
We wish this Government which is talking to the workers about more production to realise what the production of this quarter of a million men whom they are seeking to retain in the Army would mean in the ordinary production of useful articles. There would be more production of useful articles and there would be the economic problem solved that is facing us at present—the shortage of food and of goods throughout the world. Another statement which was made is that by the powers we have taken upon ourselves under the League of Nations we have greater responsibility upon our shoulders. It is curious that the League of Nations, which was to establish a world-wide peace, requires a larger army to maintain it—more money for the Army and more men in it. When will it dawn upon hon. Members and others outside that, as shown during the last war, and particularly since the war ceased, the greatest thing between nations is their economic interdependence. Each nations is dependent upon every
other nation. That is going to be the greatest feature in any League of Nations, that you can exclude any nation from the League, you can have an economic boycott placed upon it, and hon. Members know the straits to which Germany, Russia and Austria have been put by the economic boycott which was placed upon them.
There are two points of detail that I wish to bring before the attention of the Secretary of State. One is with regard to the ordinary soldiers who during and since the period of the war have committed breaches of military discipline and are at present suffering terms of imprisonment. We believe there should be a general amnesty for those who have been committing breaches of military discipline. The Army we had during the war was entirely different from any Army we have previously had. It was made up in the main of men who had, prior to joining it, spent many years in civilian workshops. Their whole outlook upon life was dominated by the outlook they had gained in the workshops. They did not take easily to rigorous military discipline. Things which would to them have seemed quite ordinary matters, to which no exception could be taken in their own particular line of work, are looked upon immediately they are committed by them as gross breaches of military discipline, and they have been imprisoned. Other nations have taken a lead in this matter. France, and even our Dominions, I believe, have passed a general amnesty for all prisoners who have been in prison for committing these breaches against military discipline. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may say we are not yet at peace. Technically speaking, that is quite true. But neither are these other nations. Neither is France, neither is Italy. France may be looked upon as being in greater danger than we are from any recurrence of war with Germany or Austria, and they have declared this general amnesty for prisoners. Why then should Britain, which has prided itself upon being the country that has always stood for liberty, be the last to give an amnesty to our own sons for breaches against our Army rules and regulations. Some of these men deserted from one unit because, in their opinion—I do not say it was right according to military discipline—they were being put upon in some way. But they did not leave the Army. They joined up in another unit and went out to fight.
These men, having been demobilised from the second unit they joined, are to-day posted as deserters from their original unit and are liable to arrest and imprisonment. I believe that is the military rule.

Mr. CHURCHILL: If in any case the hon. Member has in his mind it is shown that the man had served in another unit after this, it is not a matter which the Military Authorities would press.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am glad to hear it. That is a point which is agitating the minds of quite a number. I have a case of an individual who deserted and is going about in terror of being arrested by the police. I have put several questions to the right hon. Gentleman about boys under eighteen. There are several of them still in the Army. I judge, from a reply to a question, that it is because regulations are in force which entitle the authorities to keep them because they have committed an offence against military discipline by telling a lie in regard to their age. That is a, hardship not merely upon the boy but upon his family. Some of them are the sons of widowed mothers. One I know is an apprenticed bricklayer, four years at his trade. The country is crying out for houses. Hero it, a lad who undoubtedly could perform quite as good work as a journeyman, and yet he is kept in the Army, not because he desires to remain there, not because his parents desire that he should, but because he has said he was eighteen when lie was seventeen years and six months. The whole rule should be immediately put into operation that so soon as it is proved that these lads are under eighteen they should automatically become released and go back to civilian life, particularly when their parents desire it.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I hope I may have the indulgence of the House if I rise to address it for the first time on a matter that I think goes to the root of Army administration, and which has not been dealt with in the extraordinarily interesting and enlightening speeches we have had this afternoon. I should like to speak on other things, and I should like to reply to the hon. Member (Mr. Maclean), but I shall not do so because it is not to my point. But I will tell him that if he were to come and sit down with me, as I had the privilege of sitting down two years ago, on the reputed site of the Garden of Eden, he would soon
know the reason why we require an Army in order to introduce the reign of civilisation and peace in the territories for which we have taken over responsibility under the League of Nations. He is under a misconception as regards the nature of the work of the Army abroad. A more benevolent and beneficent institution in civilisation has never been known under these conditions.
6.0 P.M.
I wish to draw attention to a matter of Army administration from the professional point of view purely and simply. A medical man has an extensive and peculiar knowledge of the Army and its administration, as Mr. Samuel Weller had of London. There are three points to which I wish to draw attention. The first is purely that of economy. Now is the time when we have to reconsider our methods with a view to getting a move on in the direction of efficiency and economy. It has already been borne in mind by different observers from time to time what a vast wastage there is of effort from the reduplication again and again of technical personnel under the different forces; of the Crown. Confining myself alone to the medical service, you have not only the Army Medical Corps and the Navy and the Flying Corps now starting a medical service of its own, but the ground covered by the Army Medical Corps frequently interleaves and overlaps the ground covered by the Indian Medical Service, by the Colonial Office, and by the Foreign Office. For Pensions we get another administration. You have each of these new sets of administrations largely covering the same ground, and yet they do not cover the whole ground in one particular. The Navy and the Colonial Office Medical Services cover certain ground that is required. They are especially Services for the young bachelor, the man of enterprise who goes into the outer parts of the world under considerable discomfort, but after a time wishes to settle down. Neither the Navy nor the Colonial Medical Services offer a final career for him; but the Services are water-tight compartments. Equally, in the question of stores and equipment. Very largely the same things are required for the one Service and for the other, and in certain particulars for the India Office and the Foreign Office also. It would be an enormous
improvement, and an economy could be effected by joining these Services. That would fit in with the general trend of ideas, as shown by this Debate on the question of conferences between the Imperial General Staff and the different Services. You want a similar Co-ordination between the Medical Services of the different Government Departments. As to personnel, the creation of an Imperial Medical Service was, it was promised, to be considered after the War by the Army Council. I would ask the Secretary of State definitely whether the Army Council proposes at an early date to begin consideration of the question of this Imperial Medical Service. There is backing it the highest opinion amongst those who have had experience of War Office administration. Men do not want to serve abroad in the public service all their lives. Their service comes to an end, as a rule, when they are 45, when they are thrown back on the dust-heap or the golf links for the rest of their days, simply because they have reached the retiring age. They should be linked up with services at home, under Pensions, under Insurance, under the Civil Departments and the proposed reform of the Poor Law. This co-ordination of the Imperial Medical Service may be carried to any stage. You may start by co-operation; there is a certain amount of that now. You can go further, and, to use the phrase of the day, decide for coalition. I hope that this matter will be considered by the Government Departments and by the Secretary of State for War.
The second point to which I would refer was brought home to me and to many of us during the War. That is the way in which Territorial officers who had done their best to serve their country before the War were penalised—and always may be penalised when it comes to an outbreak of war—as compared with the casuals who were taken on from the ordinary labour market. I am speaking now only for medicine, though it might apply elsewhere. It was a plain and obvious disability from the very outset. I like the spirit of the young medical officer who gloried to me in his dug-out in Gallipoli that he had left his private practice and his wife and family and was getting 14s. 6d. a day because he had served his country for five years in the Territorial Force before the War broke
out, whereas the man in practice beside him at home, who thought it was not worth while giving up his holidays to training and his evenings to lectures and drill by the R.A.M.C. before the War, had been taken on at 24s. a day. That was quite deliberate, because it was foreseen. I do not want these things put straight simply from the point of view of payment, but I do ask that the spirit of it should be considered in the future mobilisation of the Territorial Force. When you are going to mobilise and you have your medical men, you can perfectly well lay it down through their parent hospitals, to which they are all attached, that arrangements shall be made by which they shall get such training and experience as are necessary and compatible with their civil duties, and then you should give them priority when it comes to a case of war. I hope that matter has been borne in mind, though I see no signs of it in connection with the reorganisation of the Territorial Force.
The third point is the position of the medical service, with the Director-General of the Army Medical Service at its head, in connection with the administration of the War Office. It is sometimes imagined that the Director-General of the Army Medical Service is responsible for the hospital service and for the services that are said to break down when a scandal arises, as it inevitably does, on any campaign being undertaken. The medical service for which the Director-General is responsible consists only of these things: The provision of doctors, nurses, drugs, instruments and dressings. It is not as a rule this medical service that breaks down. The breakdown is almost invariably in the provision of hospitals, in the provision of beds or Ordnance equipment, or in the transport arrangements for bringing together the hospital as a whole. In the old days before the Crimean War, you had two definite bodies, the Army Medical Committee and the Ordnance Medical Committee, entirely independent, each with a Director at its head. In the Crimea you had a breakdown, and we were then going to reform everything. The result was that we put the two bodies together. That arrangement did not remain very long because from the first the Director-General was not given his proper and complete function; it was limited simply to the more professional
requirements, such as the provision of doctors, nurses, or ward orderlies, drugs, instruments and dressings. At all times the other equipment, barrack equipment and so on, has come under other authority. The re-organisation did not last very long, although the public had been Iulled into a sense of security. Next we come to the South African War We had the same trouble—a tremendous breakdown, Most of us in this House remember the graphic letters, perhaps a little bit coloured but founded on horrible and undeniable facts, which were brought forward in the public press by the hon. Member (Mr. Burdett-Coutts) who still sits, I am glad to know, for the Abbey division of Westminster. We remember those letters in the "Times." They roused the nation to fury. It was again an instance of the difficulty of co-ordination, A great deal of it could not be prevented under the strategic conditions of the advance. A certain amount of it could have been prevented, however. The result was the Hospitals Commission.
When the Commission came home, before the end of the War, the then Secretary of State established a Departmental Committee for re-organising the Army Medical Service. I speak with some little interest in the matter, because I was taken on as Assistant Secretary of that Committee as representing the young ideas from the hospitals, whom it was hoped to attract into the Army Medical Service, but who, in the invariable rivalry between the two branches, were being attracted into the Indian Medical Service. That Committee reported. On it was based the whole re-organisation of the Army Medical Service. The Committee included only one representative of the Royal Army Medical Corps. He was a lieutenant-colonel of most distinguished service, afterwards Surgeon-General Sir Alfred Keogh. The Committee's recommendations gave the result in the late War that most of us know. As regards the personal efficiency of the Regular officers of the Army, no one has too high praise to give them. I speak as a Territorial officer who served with them throughout; their work has been magnificent and incomparable. There was one recommendation on which the Committee were unanimous at the time, and it was brought into force. It was the recommendation that the Director-General
should be on what was then called the Army Board. That was in October, 1901. But even then full responsibility was not given him. In 1903 a War Office Reconstruction Committee was appointed to reconsider the whole administration of the War Office. It consisted of three members—Lord Esher, Admiral (now Lord) Fisher, and Sir John Clarke (now Lord Sydenham). At the beginning of 1904 that Committee reported, and one of its recommendations with regard to the Medical Service was as follows:
Exclusive of the Nursing Board, there will remain three bodies dealing with the Medical Service generally—the large Department of the Director-General, an Advisory Board, and the Army Hospitals Committee,
These, in the opinion of Lord Esher's Committee, constituted
an ample guarantee that the vitally important operations of medical hygiene will be efficiently and adequately dealt with in future.
The new Army Council consisted, apart from the Secretary of State, the Under-Secretary and the Financial Member, of the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the Adjutant-General, the Quartermaster-General, and the Master-General of Ordnance. In addition there were added during the war the Deputy-Chief of the Imperial General Staff, the Directors of Military Aeronautics and of Movements and Railways, and, finally the Surveyor-General of Supply. These are still the members of the Army Council. I say that the introduction of these last members has done away with the original idea as to the formation of the Army Council, The point of view of Lord Esher's Committee was that the Directors of the different Departments should not be represented themselves on the Army Council. They said, moreover, that the Director-General, if necessary associated with a civil representative of the Army Medical Service Advisory Board, should be summoned to the Army Council whenever his advice and specialist knowledge were required. That is just the difficulty. Who knows when specialist advice is required? Laymen cannot know when the medical, technical, sanitary ideas may influence strategy or policy of one kind or another.
So we come to the difficulties which were foreshadowed by the British Medical Association when they represented this
point of view to the Army Council. We found it in this War. The result was that expeditions were undertaken without the Director-General of Army Medical Services having been consulted. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to what extent was the Director-General of Medical Services consulted when the original expedition sailed for Gallipoli. I think that is a very material fact. We have the report of the Dardanelles Commission, but there is no need to go into the horrors. We know what happened and the blame that was attached was due largely to lack of co-operation and provision in thinking out the probabilities. The chief person to think out the probabilities as regards sanitary dangers and the inevitable consequences of such an expedition was the Director-General of Army Medical Services. You cannot expect that that line will be taken up in the earliest official stages of adopting a policy if it is only represented by another officer, however distinguished he may be, as was the case undoubtedly with the present Adjutant-General and the late Adjutant-General. You want to have a man who is there conceiving the whole problem of sanitation. Sanitation is no longer simply a question of doctors, nurses, drugs, dressings and instruments. It is one which goes vitally to the root of the whole question of efficient strategy. That is why we say it cannot be properly dealt with if it is only referred to the' Army Council by a lay intermediary instead of by someone who is definitely responsible for the ideas ab initio in the consideration of policy.
It is the same as regards the question of hospitals. I do not wish to give the idea that we who are dealing with the prevention of disease are negligent of the humane requirements of hospitals. They are indeed literally almost more important because even if you have a failure strategically the public will general forgive you if you look after your sick and wounded, while if you secure the greatest military success and neglect your sick and wounded there will inevitably be an outcry, and the Government may be turned out of office. It is vital that the public should be confident that their sick and wounded are being looked after properly. Lord Esher's Committee recommended that the Director-General of Army Medical Service should come under the
Adjutant-General, because sanitation is so much a question of discipline. It is, but hospitals depend on other factors that depend on the Quartermaster-General and on Military Intelligence under the Chief of the General Staff, and there is no real reason why medical services should come under one more than another of those three officers. I say you want one officer on the Army Council who will be responsible for getting together all the materials and supplies and will have all the power required to get your hospitals efficient, and without that you cannot get the most satisfactory results. I would refer to the public recantation of failure from Lord Esher, to whom we owe the fact that the Director-General of Army Medical Service was deprived of his seat on the Army Board and was put on the Army Council in its first foundation. Lord Esher, as a result of his experience in this war, wrote to the "Times" in 1917 and said:
At that time when we were still under the influence of South African experience and when only one or two prescient soldiers foresaw the inevitable European war, all military influences were brought to bear upon us to limit the numbers of the Army Council. It was not realised that to keep a force in the field was at least as vital a necessity as to recruit it. September 1914 swept away this illusion, but the mischief was done. How much of the suffering undergone by our soldiers then and since was due to the short-sightedness of my Committee, and notably of myself, will never be known. Certainly the control of the Adjutant-General's branch of the R.A.M.C. was and is responsible not only for the early failure to grip the medical factors of this war, but for the hampering conditions under which Sir Alfred Keogh has worked. His triumphs and those of the R.A.M.C. have been achieved in spite of obstacles that the subordination of science to ignorance, of elasticity to military discipline, explains but cannot justify. I would appeal to Lord Derby to strengthen the Army Council by placing upon it the Director-General of Medical Services, and to free from the control of a purely military officer (admirable as is Sir Neville Macready in the sphere congenial to him) a-body of men mostly volunteers from highly-trained professions, and dealing with technical difficulties, altogether outside the orbit of vision in which the soldier, pure and simple, habitually moves.
I only take exception to one thing, and that is that we as a medical profession do not wish this placed on the ground that it is a reward to the Army Medical Service for good work done. Every single officer and man in the Army Service Corps can only say that they have done as all other
soldiers did whatever their department was, their duty, and that is the most they could wish to do. I want to put the matter purely and solely from the point of view of miltary, professional and technical efficiency that the Director-General should not only be given a seat on the Army Council but should be given responsibility, and, what is far and away the most important, power to co-ordinate and organise the whole of the possibilities of medical and sanitary science for the comfort and care of the sick and wounded in war and for the better carrying out of strategy whatever purpose is in view.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: I do not propose to follow the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken on a subject with which he is particularly qualified to deal. I am sure that the House has enjoyed his very interesting and informing maiden speech. I should like to bring the House back to the question which has been dealt with by military experts, a class to which I in no sense belong, namely, the question of a Joint Imperial General Staff. I cannot, of course, speak from the military point of view, but I have for a long time felt that such a body is absolutely imperative from the point of view of a sane and wise foreign policy. Take our policy in the Middle East. It would be improper on this occasion to develop at length its recent tergiversations, but undoubtedly the vacillation and uncertainty which have characterised it may have the result of driving the Arabs into co-operation with the Turks. I think it is all-important to have a technical body, able to put before the Cabinet what it is going to mean in military effort, if foreign policy lands us in such a position as that. The uncertainty that exists in regard to the Middle East was, I think, very well illustrated by what fell from the hon. Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson). Ho talked of the possibility of the invasion of Mesopotamia from Kurdistan. That is a very interesting suggestion, but I think it is rather against historical experience, because the tide of conquest has flown from East to West, and never, except perhaps in sporadic raids, from North to South. Asia invaded Europe through the long great corridor stretching through the plains of Armenia and the plains of Western Anatolia. It was only a very precarious hold that the people who inhabited
the mountains of the North held over the plains, and it was a matter of terrible military difficulty ever to conquer the mountains from Mesopotamia. That is a kind of problem which is of enormous importance under present conditions, because there are many people in this country who, judging from the correspondence we receive, imagine that it would be quite an easy military matter for us to take over the whole of the mountains of Armenia from our present foothold in the plains of Mesopotamia.
We can only have a really well-founded policy in this kind of matter if we have such a body as has been suggested in permanent Session and with direct access to the Cabinet. It is essential that the officers who constitute that body should be of the highest rank and not inferior to that possessed by the highest officers in the Air Force, the Board of Admiralty and the Army Council, because otherwise they cannot possibly be given the necessary weight in matters of foreign policy. The kind of case which might easily arise and which shows one how many Departments will be concerned in policy being laid down by a body of this kind is, for instance, if we found ourselves obliged to use force to quell the efforts of Mustapha Kemal in Asia Minor. Such a military expedition might well involve no less than five State Departments. It is possible that India might have to send to reinforce us in Mesopotamia and that India would herself be reinforced from Australia, thus bringing in the Colonial Office. The Transport would have to be worked out by the Admiralty and, apart from military plans, a great amount of detail work would be thrown on the Air Ministry. In the co-ordination of five Departments of that kind you cannot, leave decisions until the last moment and you must have your arrangements cut and dry beforehand. I do hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do his best to bring about the setting up of a body of this kind. Personally, I should like to see one Minister responsible for all our defensive services, and perhaps that will come in time, but until we do get this recommendation of Lord Haldane's Committee on the machinery of Government carried out, it is all-important that we should have some body to advise on matters of this kind.
The last point I wish to urge to-night is that we shall not be permitted to break
up the Machine Gun Corps. I notice in the Estimates that provision is only taken for 2,196 of all ranks of the Machine Gun Corps, and the House will probably remember that the Secretary for War recently made a speech in connection with the Territorial Force in which he mention incidentally that it was proposed to do away with the Machine Gun Corps and to have one machine gun company in each infantry battalion. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt right as far as possible to reproduce the pre-War Army, but I feel that it is a pity to neglect the improvements in that Army and its establishment which were suggested by the War, and I say it is contrary to the whole experience of the War and the whole tendency of war organisation to treat the Machine Gun Corps again as a subordinate part of infantry organisation. The House will probably remember that at the beginning of the War machine gun companies were organised in each brigade, and that system worked quite satisfactorily during the period of stationary trench warfare and attacks with limited objectives, because in trench warfare machine guns were wanted pretty well everywhere along the British front, and with an attack on a limited objective it was quite easy in your detailed plans to provide for the pooling of machine gun resources. When it became clear that trench warfare was Hearing its end, and that a more mobile type was going to take its place, machine gun battalions were formed, and the liaison with brigades was very often carried out under trench conditions by more or less ear-marking particular companies for work with particular formations; but as warfare became more and more open, machine guns had to work as an entirely separate arm, and I think in this respect their evolution has been very much like that of the artillery. The House will remember that originally the artillery fought in very much closer touch with the infantry than they do nowadays, and that it was Napoleon who divorced the two arms and used the artillery for mass effect. I think he used mass effect at the Battle of Friedland first, and that he there first made artillery corps troops and made a very definite stage in the increase of the efficiency of artillery work.
The development of the machine gun as a separate arm seems to be analogous.
The Canadian Corps were the pioneers in this respect in the late War, but it proved such a great advantage that the whole of the British Expeditionary Force very quickly followed suit, and every army issued instructions about machine guns on very much the same lines as the Canadian Corps. In view of the danger from the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that in peace we are going to forget the lessons of war, I will read the House one or two extracts from a memorandum which was circulated in the most critical phase of the War on machine gun organisation. There was a memorandum on first army policy—each army had almost the same words—which stated:
The Vickers gun is a weapon with characteristics of its own, which are not those of the weapons of either the infantry or artillery. The machine-gun service must therefore be regarded as a distinctive arm with tactics of its own. In all respects it is intermediate and Alls the tactical gap between the infantry and artillery, its tactics being radically different from the former and approximating to, but not being identical with, the tactics of the latter.
Later on it says:
Machine guns are not part of the infantry, and must not be considered as such.
I would remind the House that the machine gun is entirely different from the Lewis gun. It has got a fixed platform, which adapts it for firing overhead of the infantry, indirect firing off a map, with an effective range up to 2,500 or even 3,000 yards. Of course, that is out of the question with a gun with a loose bipod like the Lewis gun, which cannot fire over infantry in ordinary country and which cannot possibly fire off the map at unseen targets. The Lewis gun, on the other hand, is lighter, more easily concealed, much more mobile, and therefore pre-eminently the weapon to move with the infantry and to be used in an assault. The result of the introduction of the Lewis gun was to differentiate the Vickers gun and to enable it to concentrate on new tactics and to develop an amount of efficiency at this indirect fire and barrage work never dreamed of in the earlier stages of the War; but subordinate infantry commanders were often tempted to use them wrongly, partly from ignorance of the possibilities of the Vickers gun and partly from taking too local a view of its operations. In the latter phases of the War this was very marked, and even after machine gun
battalions were introduced, brigades were very often found using machine guns with far too close an interest in their own front, and our operations often suffered from the resulting shortage of machine gun resources. One of the chief reasons for the change of organisation bringing into existence the Machine Gun Corps was that the machine gun resources were found to be so important that they must be kept fluid, and fluid in a way they could not possibly be under brigade organisation, when the tendency of the brigadier was to use them in place of infantry or in place of Lewis guns.
It would be disastrous technically and tactically to scrap this war organisation, and to put machine-gun tactics and training under infantry commanding officers. Infantry commanders have had no opportunity of realising the technical advance of machine gun work, and the efforts made in the last year of the War to educate even the general staff by demonstration in short courses probably did something to show soldiers with rather less technical knowledge the astounding development of machine gun technique. Infantry commanding officers cannot hope to become specialists in an arm of this kind, and it is disastrous to make them, who may perhaps be specialists on bayonet training or some other particular branch of infantry work, responsible for the very complicated training of machine guns, and I think it was for this reason that the First Army memorandum said:
The machine gun battalion is the unit for organisation and training. The training has thus been centralised to obtain greater uniformity in tactics and greater efficiency in technical training.
Both technically and tactically it is of importance for this young weapon to retain its corps organisation and to have some senior officer at the War Office to fight its battles. I hope it may still not be too late for the Secretary of State for War to change his mind and to profit by the lessons of experience by preserving the independence of the force, which in the War fully justified the decision to constitute it as a separate arm.

Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTT: The most striking feature of this Debate is that there has been no concerted attack from the Benches opposite on the general military policy of the Government.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: We have not been called on.

Mr. SCOTT: There have been a good many speeches made in this House, and only one hon. Member, I think, has risen from the Benches opposite to speak, and that was one from whom we might have expected a vehement attack, but if we put aside a certain acidity of tone and look at the substance of his speech, there was very little in it that might not have been made from these Benches. What were the points to which he directed himself? In the first place, there was an appeal for greater facilities for promotion from the ranks, and that is an appeal which I have often heard made with great effect from these Benches on this side of the House, and it is a subject in regard to which very great advances have been made during recent years. The next point was an amnesty for soldiers who had committed military offences during the War: and the last point was the desirability of releasing from the Army soldiers who had joined under the age of 18. If that is all the attack that can be made upon the general military policy of the Government from one of the most vehement of the opponents of the Government on the Benches opposite, I think the Government has reason to congratulate itself.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister for War on the feat which he has accomplished in securing the abolition of conscription so expeditiously—in fact, within a very few months of the ratification of the Peace Treaty with Germany. The task was not a small one. It involved the demobilisation of an Army of 4,000,000 of men held together by the tie of conscription, and the replacing of it by a new Army of 250,000 raised on quite a different principle, namely, the voluntary principle. Even in time of profound peace, the carrying out of a change like that would have been a task of the very greatest difficulty, both as regards organisation in the Army itself and as regards the labour market outside the Army. But this task had not to be carried out in a time of profound peace. It was carried out in a time of the greatest danger and of the greatest difficulty, at a time when the Army might be wanted at any moment as an efficient organisation to take the field in war, at a time when, so far from having commenced carrying out the
Peace Treaty, the Treaty had not even been arrived at. In these circumstances, in the midst of such complications, such dangers, and such difficulties, there was the possibility of losing all that we had fought for. The Army had won the victory, the Army was still the chief weapon on which we had to rely for securing the terms of peace and for enforcing them. If that weapon had slipped from our hands or had been shattered, if the Army had been so disorganised that we had not been able to use it, then the Government of this country which had permitted such a state of affairs to arise would have been guilty of a crime for which the electors would never have forgiven them.
I say that this task had to be carried out, and all the time it was being carried out the Army had to be maintained in a position of efficiency, so that it could be used at a moment's notice. Not only that, but there were great intrinsic dangers in the Army. The Army consisted of millions of men, most of whom had been away from their homes for years, who had made very great sacrifices, and whose dependants had made many great sacrifices, in order that those men should remain in the Army. They were naturally anxious to return at the earliest possible moment, and their dependants were naturally anxious to have them back at the earliest possible moment. If these men were convinced that they were being unjustly treated, that they were being unfairly detained in the Army beyond the period that was necessary, then there was a danger that the whole Army would have lost its spirit and would have become demoralised. If we could have demobilised first of all those men and those units who could most easily have been spared from the Army, it would have greatly facilitated the task of the military authorities. If we could have released first of all those men who could most easily be absorbed into industry, it would greatly have relieved from anxiety the civil authorities at home, but if either of those policies had been adopted it would have involved the release in the first place of younger men with comparatively short terms of service, while older men with much longer terms of service were being retained in the Army, and this would have imposed an intolerable sense of injustice upon them.
My right hon. Friend, therefore, had the added difficulty of devising and carrying out a scheme which involved the basing of priority of release upon age and upon length of service combined in the case of each individual. He had to carry out this task of demobilisation not only in the most difficult and dangerous circumstances with regard to the external foreign situation, but in a particular manner which imposed the greatest difficulty of organising demobilisation within the Army. Yet this task, which was quite as great in its way as the task of raising the Army, has now in. this month been accomplished, and we are relying upon a voluntary Army instead of an Army raised by conscription I cannot help recollecting the attitude of many of my hon. Friends opposite at this time last year. They chose to assume, for the purpose of debate, that the War was ended with the Armistice. They chose to assume that from that moment there was no further need of conscription, from that moment all the men might be released, there was no question of whether there were ships sufficient to carry them home, no question of what was to become of these men through the process of release, but that, at the moment the Armistice was signed, every man could leave his station in the Army, proceed to Boulogne, Salonica or Basra, take his place in the queue, perhaps 20 miles long, to wait his turn for a steamer. That was a policy which was not practicable, which could not have recommended itself to any responsible Government, and I am sure this policy would not have recommended itself to any section of hon. Members opposite if they had been in the position of being responsible for the conduct of the Government of this country, for the negotiations and for the enforcement of the Treaties of Peace and for the demobilisation of the Army.
The Military Service Bill, which was carried out at that time and was the subject of very great criticism, was not a Bill for the continuation of conscription. It was a Bill for the ending of conscription. It was a Bill which was an essential part of the machinery of demobilisation, and of the machinery for ending conscription in this country. It named a definite date when conscription was to come to an end, and long before the day it was passed demobilisation was in progress. Not a single new conscript was added to the Army as a result of that
Bill, but for months before it was passed, and every day after it was passed, thousands of men were being demobilised. The Bill was simply a. part of the necessary and inevitable machinery for securing the orderly and organised carrying out of the work of demobilisation and of ending conscription. When I look back on the speeches which were delivered a year ago in this House on the Army Estimates, and on the Bill, and the vehement and violent attacks on the Government—attacks which, I am sure, we shall not hear repeated to-day with regard to conscription, even from the hon. and gallant Member for Hull.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I was not in the House then.

Mr. SCOTT: I am quite sure my hon. and gallant Friend would have tried to find some other stick with which to beat the Government. Those speeches were directed to accusing the Government of a breach of faith, to alleging that the Government was dishonest in saying it was against conscription, that it really was in favour of conscription, and that it was desirous of securing the permanent retention of conscription in this country. They were speeches which incited the soldiers at that difficult and dangerous period to believe that they were being unfairly and unjustly dealt with. I remember those charges figured very much in some of the by-elections which took place at that time. I do not think we shall hear much of conscription again in any of the present or future elections. I think it is desirable that those charges, which were meant to discredit hon. Members on this side of the House, who are just as strongly against conscription as any hon. Member opposite—I think it is desirable that those charges and those accusations, which were so freely uttered last year, should be recalled now at a time when we are witnessing the complete success of the Government's policy for securing the end of conscription.

Mr. WATERSON: I have listened with interest to the last speaker, and I am afraid that he was a little premature. I want, at any rate, to draw his attention "to the fact that there has only been one speech made on this side of the House, when he makes the charge that we have been very lax and have not put any ginger into the Debate this afternoon. I would remind him in particular that it was not
altogether the general feeling of goodwill on the part of the Government that ended Conscription. It was absolutely the speeches which we were able to make in the country that brought public opinion to put such pressure upon the Government that they could see no other way out of the difficulty, and I am convinced in my own mind that if it had been left entirely to the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, we might have had Conscription round our necks at the present time. I am also of opinion that Conscription was part of the Government's policy in order that it should tie down the industrial toilers of this country. It was not only from the point of view of military operations in the European areas, or even in the Middle East, or even n the Indian territory, but Conscription was essential at that time as a part of the Government's policy in order to keep down the unrest that was so prevalent in this country because of the Government's mismanagement of home affairs.
7.0 P.M.
Let me come to the Estimates. An hon. and gallant Gentleman said he was extremely anxious that, with regard to the three main bodies, the Air Forces, the Land Forces, and the Sea Forces, there should be unification and harmonious working together, and he argued that it was not only essential in time of war, but it was essential in peace time preparatory to war. That was a remarkable statement, and I want to ask very seriously, if this House in reality believes in the League of Nations, that it should say so without any hypocritical pretence of any kind. To my mind a League of Nations can never be established in reality until we are prepared to put our own house in order, and the League of Nations will then stand as a lasting testimony to the goodwill of the legislators of this country. We have in these Estimates a figure that will suffice for the needs of 20,000 more men than we had in our normal conditions before the War. I am reminded, when I review those figures, that our net call for these Estimates is roughly £125,000,000. Altogether there are for war services £230,000,000; Army, £125,000,000; Navy, £84,000,000; Air, £21,000,000. I have been perusing these Estimates, and I want to say a word of encouragement to the Secretary of State for War, and I hope
he will believe I am sincere. I have been watching the item concerning the education of our soldiers. There have been times, in the past, when the Army has been looked upon by many as a blind-alley occupation. When they had served their term, for which they signed their contract, and had come out of the Army and entered into civil life, the only occupation that they could follow would be that of an ordinary general labourer. I am glad that we are going to train the men that are in the Army, and make them skilled in various activities, so that they will become useful citizens in the production of all that is essential to the life of the community. While that is no new thought from our point of view, I am glad to see that, while the Army is here, that opportunity of development will be taken, because it will be money spent in the right direction and will be advantageous to the country as a whole.
I notice that the Army Vote is part of a great extension of War policy which we thought from the very beginning would be the outcome of a war to end war. No hon. or right hon. Member of this House would disparage the noble sacrifices that the working classes of this country, and indeed all classes of this country, made. I am not going to say that the working classes were the only classes in the country who made sacrifices. A man would be foolish to make a statement of that kind. There were men whom, politically, I should reject, but even they were prepared to answer the call, and did so right nobly. But the War was to be a war to end war, and yet we find, sixteen or seventeen months after the declaration of the Armistice, that we are going to spend £125,000,000 to cope with the need of 20,000 more men than we had before the War, although we fought the War with the specific object of making it impossible for any wars to take place in the future. When my right hon. Friend made his speech in this House, on the 23rd February, on the Army Vote, we naturally asked why there was no reduction to a pre-War level, and my right hon. Friend, in the course of his speech, said:
The pre-war Army was only for garrisoning the Empire. That is why the removal of the German danger does not in itself enable any reduction to be made.
He went on to deal with the situation in the East, and said:
New and serious responsibilities, temporary and permanent, have been placed upon us in consequence of the War, and the whole Eastern world is in a state of extreme disquiet and unsettlement.
I am not going to minimise that statement, but I am going to ask—and I think I have the right to receive an answer—Why is the East troubled? Why is there this disquiet and this discontent? I want to suggest that it may be from the fact that there are European Imperialists still living who are anxious to snatch some territory in that area. This burden has been placed upon us in consequence of the War, and the whole Eastern world, consequently, is in a state of extreme disquiet and unsettlement. I am reminded of the telegram which was sent by His Most Gracious Majesty the King of this country, and which was published in the "Times" of 21st December, 1914. It said:
I feel convinced that we will be able to overcome all influences which are seeking to destroy the independence of Egypt.
And yet in 1919, not many months ago, after winning the War for the independence of small nationalities—and let me incidentally say that Montenegro's right has been ignored—Britain inserted a clause in the Peace Treaty by which nations recognise that Egypt is a British protectorate. Britain has absolutely refused to allow the Egyptian claim for independence to be heard by the Peace Conference. I will not argue for the moment whether that is right or wrong, but I would say that it would give them an opportunity of knowing why it is a British protectorate, and it would give you an opportunity of saying why you have felt that it ought to. be a British protectorate; and, if your cause is just and honourable, what need is there to hide the situation which at the same time is causing that unrest beneath the surface so far as the Egyptian population is concerned. When we go a little further East, we also find some unrest in India, and these Army Estimates are going to affect the situation there. We know that in 1919 serious disputes took place in India, and they were followed by various sorts of legislation of a penal character, riots, and then there came that great massacre at Amritsar. All this, from our point of view, is the result, or rather the
outcome, of economic causes, and we say that, if these things are the outcome of economic causes, the people who make those causes, from the economic standpoint, should bear their burden as far as the cost is concerned. I do not want to dwell upon the situation as far as India is concerned, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education (Mr. Fisher), in reply, I believe, to a question on the 18th of February, gave statistics of the death-rate in British India, which was very high. That only goes to prove that the situation in India is far from being satisfactory, and that we ought to remove those economic causes. Their removal, to my mind, would case the burden of the military situation in India.

Sir J. D. REES: Would the hon. Gentleman say what those economic causes are?

Mr. WATERSON: I am afraid that if I were to develop that situation, which could easily be done when we are discussing the Indian question—the great amount of profit accumulated by capitalistic speculators in that country has been the entire result of it—if I were to develop that, I should be ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, and probably that would suit certain hon. Members. In the course of another speech, which my right hon. Friend made on the 23rd February, he said:
It is not the Army Council or the General Staff who choose what territory should be occupied. Such matters are decided by the Cabinet with the approval of Parliament.
If that is going to have the approval of Parliament, this House cannot have much to say about it, but it would be well to ask ourselves whether all the territories that have been taken have been taken with the sanction of Parliament. Was the Will in North Russia sanctioned by Parliament? It is true 1;hat we have got to pay the terrible cost of it, but as far as the expidition was concerned, this House never had an opportunity—

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes. On a direct vote the House, by a very large majority, gave its sanction.

Mr. WATERSON: I submit that that took place after the expedition had been entered into. My argument is that the expedition never ought to have taken place until Parliament had given its authority.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The expedition was sent during the war. It is surely not suggested that Parliament should have passed a Resolution in favour of every military enterprise during the war.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It was reinforced afterwards.

Mr. WATERSON: I also want to draw attention to where those soldiers are, for whose maintenance during the coming year these Estimates are asked for. In October, 1919, the combined cost of the Army and Air Force in the normal year was £75,00(),000. This is how we are going to utilise this money during the coming year. Our home Forces will be 161,134. I want to know how much that will be reduced when Ireland has got her just rights. Shall we be able to reduce it by 20,000? Shall we be able to reduce it by 50,000?

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are only 7,000 or 8,000 men in Ireland more than there were before the war.

Mr. WATERSON: I hope, at any rate, that, as far as the 7,000 men are concerned, we shall reduce that If we cannot have the mackerel we will endeavour to get the sprat. In the Colonies there are, roughly, 10,000; on the Rhine, 16,674; in Egypt, 11,605; in Mesopotamia, 18,572; and then there is an item "Foreign Missions, 2,226." It is about this last named that I am more concerned than about some of the other items. What do we mean by "Foreign Missions" Do we mean what might be termed an expeditionary force to go simply at the dictates of the military authority, and the Government then come and ask this House to sanction something after they have completely done it? I am also not satisfied that there is an absolute need of 161,000 men for Home Forces, unless, as was suggested by an hon. member in this House on the 11th February, it is thought fit by the military authorities to keep an armed force of that character to utilise machine guns and tanks against the miners and men of that kind. [An HON MEMBER: "Shame."] We have had experiences in that direction. I have not forgotten the incident in 1911, when the railway-men were only out three days, and the armed forces of the Crown were utilised then against the public and against the strikers. Then we have, I believe, to-day, something like 1,000 men in Russia.
These men went out, or rather were taken out, in order to assist General Denikin. What use are they in Russia to-day? If they are any use at all, from my point of view and that of many other hon Members, they can only be of very small assistance to General Denikin in keeping up the struggle against the Government of Russia, which is practically of no avail. I want to, ask what is the official policy of the Government towards establishing the League of Nations and the reduction of armaments? I also wish to ask a question in connection with the Z Reserve men. I would like to know if we may expect their early release?

Mr. CHURCHILL: On the 31st of March.

Mr. WATERSON: I am aware that the right, hon. Gentleman has made that statement in the Press, but there are many hon. Members who are still getting letters upon this question, and they are beginning to treat the matter with suspicion.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There are no grounds for that.

Mr. WATERSON: They are beginning to think that there may be some spurious object behind all this, and that these men may be used in connection with some affairs or other in this country. I do not want to deal with this question as far as our military representatives abroad are concerned, but I ask if the men who were sent from Mesopotamia to India in order to be demobilised have yet returned home? A question was asked the other day as to the necessary transport for ordinary passengers from India to this country and probably to America. Upon this question I received a letter a week ago from the wives of two soldiers who were out in India when they got the last letter from them. I want to say that before ordinary passengers are shipped it is necessary that we should ship these worn-out warriors from India, and get them home to their own families. We are looking very suspiciously upon this matter. With reference to the release of boys, many of them joined quite patriotically with the best of intentions when they were quite lads and they gave a false afe. There are circumstances which sometimes justify one stretching a little bit farther than under ordinary circumstances, but I think we
should show sufficient sympathy in this matter and have all those boys released.

Major GLYN: I cannot help rising in order to reply to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. The hon. Member's speech brings home the great need for the formation of a joint general staff or body of that sort, because it shows that there is so much misconception as to what an Army, or a Navy, or an Air force is for. The hon. Member spoke of the Army as being a good educational force.

Mr. WATERSON: I did not say the Army was a good educational force. What I said was that while the men were in the Army we should take the best opportunity we could find of educating them.

Major GLYN: I am glad even to that extent the Army has the support of the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Member believes that war is unnecessary and that there is no danger in the future, why does he support an Army at all? Is he willing not to move a reduction now, but to advocate the abolition of the Army altogether? To me there seems to be no logical halting-house between those two extremes. If an Army is necessary, then it should be an efficient one. It is easy to criticise the Secretary of State for War for having a large force, but what we want is to see those who disbelieve in any spirit of militarism to have the courage of their opinions and to say frankly and boldly what they mean. The Secretary for War has carried out a task of immense difficulty with a very satisfactory result. This problem is far from being understood by the people, and one really is in despair if those hon. Gentlemen who style themselves representatives of Labour get up and make speeches here which show a total lack of understanding the needs and obligations of the people of this country. With one breath they say they believe in the League of Nations, but as far as I know they always speak for the defence of the Armenians and persecuted small nations. What use would this country be in such matters without the legitimate use of the Army or the Navy to carry out what has been our mission since the early pages of history?
We have not arrived at our position in the world with soft speeches and pious hopes, but because our rulers have used our forces on the side of right and justice, and in that they have always
received the support of the whole people of this country. I am convinced that the opinion of the people of this country is not represented by such speeches as we have heard from the Labour Benches. I believe there is a serious danger that unless we point out our great obligations in other parts of the world, that most infatuating cry of economy may run away with our sense of proportion, and we may be in danger of finding ourselves holding a good position in the world and unable to use our full weight in the League of Nations or anywhere else. For these reasons I think it is very necessary at a time when all the peoples in the world, from Armenia to Russia and Africa, are asking for British protection and help, that our policy should be made clear when we have an hon. Member asking what two thousand or three thousand members of military missions are doing abroad? They are preserving order and stopping massacres, and helping those downtrodden people to recover, after a great and devastating war. I cannot believe that it is the wish of the hon. Gentleman or those associated with him that we should desist from that task from which we have never held back in our history. It seems to ma that the Secretary for War could very well use his great influence assisting the formation of a joint imperial general staff, if for no other reason than that once it is established, confidence will result right through the country.
Among soldiers and sailors and people generally there is an impression that vacillating political policies have been our undoing in the past. It is very difficult to have a true form of stable military or naval policy if it is always liable to be reversed by a change of Government. If we had an Imperial general staff of an advisory character no Government that came into office would be liable to swing so violently to extremes. We all want the expert naval or military opinion to be the, ruling factor in our military and naval operations, which, of course, we hope will be postponed to a very distant period; but when you have great newspapers who think that any stick is good enough with which to beat the Government, using arguments of this kind, one begins to wonder where we are. None of these attacks would receive any support from the people of the country if it were clearly shown that the critics were barking
up the wrong tree. We must have confidence and strength to enforce our will if our power is to be put to the test. If we are to have true economy it means that we should use the forces of the country in the most economical way and not find ourselves in the position when the time of trial comes that we shall have to adopt scramble methods to get the forces needed for us to carry out the wishes of Parliament and the people of this country. I think the whole House owes a real debt of gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has accomplished in the past, and I trust that he will bring his powers to bear on the formation of a joint committee in order that, with the assistance of hon. Members of that committee, we may educate public opinion in the modern history which has been established as a result of the war, and let the people realise how great our responsibilities are and show them that we are not willing to turn back from the great task that still lies before us.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I desire to call attention to a matter which I do not think has been yet touched upon in this Debate. Although the total Army Estimates for this year show a decrease of something like £280,000,000 as compared with last years' s Estimates, there is one part which shows a very substantial increase and that is the department of the Finance Member of the War Office under the control of the Financial Secretary. A reference to those Estimates shows that the Estimates of the Finance Member's department has gone up by £50,00 this year that is, from £458,000 to very nearly £510,000 in round figures. That is all the more extraordinary in view of the fact that the number of men in the Army has been decreased from 2,500,000 to 525,000 this year. I looked at the Estimates for 1914–15 in order to see at what figure the cost of the Finance Member's Department of the War Office stood, and I found it was £128,000. Whereas this amount was £128,000 before the War it has now gone up to nearly £510,000, and I hope we shall have some explanation of this increase. No doubt it is due in part to the increased cost of the various members of the staff and their subordinates, but why should the numbers not be decreased at a time when there has been such an enormous diminution in the Army. I am unable to find in the Estimate what the exact figures are of the
Army Pay Department and Corps, and I would like to know how the figures stand as compared with the past year. Perhaps the representative of the War Office will give me those figures in order to reassure the House that in these matters of pay we are establishing a real reduction as compared with last year.
May I suggest one or two ways in which possibly economies could be effected in regard to pay? In the first place, I suggest to him that instead of the present system of pay and allowances, officers should have consolidated pay. I am aware that this it not a new question. It has been raised before. But the extraordinary thing is this, that although there have been repeated demands for consolidated pay for the regimental officer, last year the War Office de-consolidated the pay of staff officers all over. This, as I hope to show, is a very great increase in cost, trouble, annoyance, and loss of economy generally. The regimental officer gets his pay fixed with so much as allowance under four or five different headings: Rations, servant, lodging, fuel and lighting, with an extra in the case of the married officer. Every Regular officer of the whole Army—and I see there is provision apart from the staffs for something like 17,000—has to send in every month no less than four claims and sometimes five in respect of each of these four or five separate allowances. That is a very great tax upon the officer, an extreme annoyance for him to prepare these elaborate claims for 2s., 5s., and so on. That is not all These claims go in first to the officer commanding the unit. They are examined, vouchers produced, and so on; then they are passed on to the brigade, and the division, until finally they reach the War Office.
Here a similar examination has to be gone through, with an enormous cost of the regular clerks' time, and these things being thoroughly gone into, correspondence takes place, and further examination, with a further number of clerks engaged. Is it not possible to arrange some system by which, instead of all this work being thrown upon the clerks of the different Departments, and of the War Office itself, the pay could be consolidated? Let me suggest to my right hon. Friend how he could save by a method of consolidation. You would avoid a vast number of very complicated forms and
difficult Regulations which are constantly being issued from the War Office, constantly varied, and which constantly have to be interpreted by the different offices and by the War Office. You would effect not only a great saving in the clerical staffs, not only throughout the regiments, but at the local auditors' offices, the Exchequer auditors' offices, and finally at the War Office. This is really worth consideration in the interest of economy. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to do what I request simply on his own official initiative, could he not see his way to set up a Committee of experts. presided over by a chairman from outside, to examine this matter? This would be a committee of men who really understand the working of these things, such as paymasters, and so on.
There are only two other economies I want to suggest. As hon. Members know, there has been a new Department set up, a Costings Committee, though I am not sure that is the technical name given it by the War Office. The object is to find out what any particular unit costs, no doubt for purposes of comparison. I have looked through these Estimates with extreme care to find, if I can, what is the cost of this Costings Committee. I am unable to find out. Perhaps we may be told by the right hon. Gentleman? Also will he say whether it is really worth the cost? As a matter of fact, there is already, I believe, costings committees in the units throughout the country. The system is carried out in the commands. Is there any real necessity for this new-body of the War Office, and can its work not be done through the existing organisation? The last point I want to make is this: I have made it my business, so far as a layman can, to understand the kind of audit which is imposed by the War Office in the case of contractors. So far as I have been able to learn there are five or six different system of audit which have to be gone through before payment of accounts is sanctioned. I do not for one moment suggest that any precaution to ensure that public money is not paid away wrongly ought not to be taken. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will look into this question. If there is any portion of this complicated and expensive system of audit which can be avoided, and economy effected, it would be well for the right hon. Gentleman to give it his consideration. If he sets up the
Committee of experts for which I have asked, then they could look into this question of audit as well as that of the consolidation of the pay, and so secure some economy. With this enormous Estimates before us, my right' hon. Friend will realise that it is the duty of every Member of this House to contribute what suggestions he can towards economy, and it is in that spirit that I put my suggestions before the House.

Captain ELLIOT: In one word I should like to reinforce the argument of the hon. and learned Member who has just sat down in respect to the question of the consolidation of pay. I suffered from it during the War. I can thoroughly substantiate every word that has been said. It is an interminable nuisance the filling up of these forms, and nobody ever knows his pay, or whether he is going to get it. As a matter of fact it depends very much upon the quartermaster. If there is a good quartermaster in the battalion you get your money; if there is not you do not get it. It is a degrading thing that an officer of the Army should be subject to the quartermaster of his unit as to whether or not he gets the pay due to him for repelling the invader. I wish to support the claim put forward by the hon. Member for St. Albans, that the Director-General should be permitted to have a seat directly upon the Army Council. There are a number of medical points of the greatest importance. I think it was said by Lord Esher that the final task of keeping an Army in the field was just as an important thing as raising the Army. Certainly there were many gigantic blunders made during the War owing to the neglect of medical advice which would not have been made if the man responsible for that advice had had a seat directly on the Army Council where he could have put his case direct before those who were about to launch expeditions. There were many points in the malaria-haunted valley of the Struma which were occupied and kept in the teeth of medical advice, and where we lost many thousands of men needlessly throughout the War by the neglect of the plain straightforward advice of the doctors. To continue to despise the claims of medical authority in spite of what we have learned as a result of this War would be one of the greatest follies of which the Army Council could be guilty. The medical people have made contributions
of the greatest value towards keeping an Army in the field. I would simply mention two instances—one at home, the other abroad.
The first is in respect of the diet of the soldier. It is impossible to give the young recruit too much to eat. It is nearly impossible to give him enough. You take a growing lad who has much physical exercise, and you give him 3,000 or 4,000 or 4,500 calories per day. He wolfs the food up and, like Oliver Twist, comes back and asks for more. The best proof of what I say is that such a lad—and there were many of them—spends his own private money in buying more food. When he comes off drill in the morning he goes down to the canteen. He does not buy milk or cake or even cigarettes; he buys rice pudding. This at 11 o'clock in the forenoon! That is sufficient proof that he can scarcely get enough to eat. In the first winter of demobilisation the physiological experts warned the Army Council that there were a lot of people coming back from the front, vigorous men, and they urged an increase in the rations. Of course, the Army Council took no notice of this until Australian troops mutinied, and, as so often happens with His Majesty's Government, on the threat of force, they at once gave what they would not previously concede to reason. The rations of the troops were improved, and immediately discontent began to fall away.
The other point is in quite a different area. I refer to the troops sent to Egypt. They were going into a district swarming with a parasitic disease known as bilharzia. The Army Council were warned in time, and they sent out experts. A certain amount of field work was done, and in a very few months the cause of bilharzia was discovered, and our troops were practically immune from this disease which otherwise, but for the medical advice—which was taken—would have invalided many thousands permanmently or semi-permanontly, not only during the War, but when it was over These cases show that the voice of the medical man is of the greatest importance towards the great task of keeping the army in the field. Any medical man knows there are many many instances that could he given. Therefore, with all my might, I beg the Secretary for War to consider the claims of the Director-General of the Army Medical Service to a direct scat on the
Council. There are one or two things we find in the Estimates, injustices, which would not be permitted if such representation were in practice.
In the case of Mesopotamia it is an extraordinary thing that there are many white doctors who have been kept there long after the time they were due for demobilisation. Our profession is the only profession to which conscription was applied up to the age of 56. Other people were conscripted only up to the ages of 40, 41 and 45, but the medical profession was subjected to it up to the age of 56. No such strain was laid on any other class of the community. There are many British doctors out in Mesopotamia who are not released because we are told they are indispensable. There are a number of native doctors there who should be able to take their place, but they do not do so because, whatever one may say about the capacity of Indian doctors, there is no doubt that the ordinary Indian trooper himself resents extremely having to depend on native medical officers for medical advice. Another point is that these white doctors are being paid loss than native doctors. It is not here a case of equal treatment for the native doctor; he, in fact, gets preferential treatment and is being paid a higher rate, while he is held to be incapable of performing the work done by the white doctor. This is a great injustice and is causing much discontent in Mesopotamia. The feeling is extending to the Indian Medical Service which is, practically speaking, in a state of seething unrest, and, as soon as permission can be obtained to resign, many hundreds of commissions will in fact be resigned.
The next point to which I wish to draw attention is this, there is a small dental Estimate for the Army Medical Corps. Those of us who were out in the War realised that dental treatment was one of the black spots of our medical service. It was most inefficient, and we therefore welcome this arrangement for dentistry, a small beginning though it may be, and hope that it will continue. We trust that the Financial Secretary will convey to the Secretary of State for War the opinion, which is held by medical men and dentists throughout the country, that dentistry should be a Divisional Institution in the same way as a field ambulance. A Division has plenty of work for
the dentists, and therefore we suggest they should form a divisional unit, and be supplied with a motor ambulance-fitted up completely to enable all branches of the work to be done. Many thousands of men are lost to the effective strength because they cannot get dental treatment.
The last point which I wish to bring to the notice of the Financial Secretary is the extraordinary attitude of the War-Office, and of the right hon. Baronet's own Department in particular, towards women in the Army. The attitude of the Army towards women is that of the good old cave-man, the proud fighting man who goes in front carrying his weapon while his humble squaw follows behind with the baggage. She is underpaid and under-fed, and is regarded as nothing but a poor camp follower. As long as the Financial Secretary treats her as she is treated to-day, so long will she remain poor. The salary of the nursing sister amounts to the munificent sum of £50 per annum, and it does seem disgraceful that we should ask a skilled woman to spend her life in serving the Army for so small a sum. I believe the war bonus and allowances bring the total up to about £140, but then there is always great difficulty in getting the allowances, and, further than that, if the nursing sister goes on holiday for a week or ten days the allowances are stopped. The Government, in fact, is the only employer which fines its servants heavily when they go away for a well-earned rest. Nursing sisters have put forward their claims before this, and I think it worth while repeating them. A woman in the position of a nursing sister should rank as an officer. At present she does not do so. She does not hold the King's commission. She cannot be granted the Military Cross; she can only have the awards given to non-commissioned officers, the D.C.M. and the Military Medal. It is scandalous, considering what these people go through, and when they are serving with the troops they certainly ought to have the status of officers. They are as worthy of holding His Majesty's commission as any man who ever fought in the field. Women with the auxiliary forces are in a worse state. A girl driving a motor ambulance may be out in an air raid and may be injured by a bomb, but she is not paid on the same basis as a member of a fighting
unit; she is treated as a camp follower and does not get the same rate of compensation as a soldier. It is a scandal that a woman who has to undergo these risks should not get a proper recompense for it and should not, if wounded or crippled, get as much compensation as a soldier.
The last point I have to raise is that medical women in attendance on the women's auxiliary forces are not counted really as belonging to His Majesty's Forces, and do not get the Income Tax repayments to which all the other Army Services are entitled. The Treasury have explained that they are not paid these specifically on the ground that they are looking after women. Women apparently are not classed as part of His Majesty's Forces, although they have served with honourable distinction. They are denied this status though ii; is conceded to German prisoners, conscientious objectors and Army mules. It is not right to say that anybody in attendance on women is in attendance on camp followers and not on His Majesty's Forces. I think the attitude of the War Office towards women is distinctly archaic and badly requires revision. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give us an assurance that their financial status will be revised; that they will be given the concessions which are made to all other of His Majesty's subjects serving in the Army; and that these unfair distinctions will be done away with as soon as possible.

8.0 P.M.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir A. Williamson): I will endeavour to deal with some of the minor points raised in this Debate, leaving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to reply on the larger questions later in the evening. The hon. and gallant Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) referred to a point mentioned on page 14 of the Army Estimate affecting two items of expenditure, one under the head "Palestine" and the other under the head "Mesopotamia," and he wished for an explanation of the items "Other Expenditure." The explanation of these figures is given on the succeeding page, where it says that "Other Expenditure" covers mainly Indian and local labour and miscellaneous expenses of Indian native troops. It has not been possible for the Department to get more details. We are awaiting them from
India, but I hope the explanation I have given will suffice. The same hon. and gallant Member also referred to the blank on page 97. The House will notice, however, it is not quite a blank. The page is headed "Summary of Estimate," and at the bottom the summary itself appears. There may be a certain amount of waste space, but all that is needed will be found at the foot of the page. With regard to an explanation of these figures, I may refer hon. Members to page 100, where the House will observe a total figure of £27,307,000, which corresponds with the same figure on page 97. This net expenditure of £27,307,000 is the result of the larger figures shown on pages 98–100, subject to deductions which are also shown, and that is the explanation of what puzzled the hon. and gallant Member. The hon. Member asked if it would not be possible at some time to give to the House and to the country a sort of Budget showing the expenditure in Palestine and Mesopotamia, including the outlay for civil purposes, and on the other side the results of such expenditure. That, no doubt, would be a very interesting statement if it could be procured, but I am afraid the time is not yet for one to take stock of whatever there may be on the assets side of the account in Mesopotamia. No doubt many hon Members feel, and to an extent I share their feeling, some doubt as to the material advantages which may accrue from the possession of these territories, but we cannot on that account lay down the obvious duty which lies upon us as a nation, and especially upon the War Office, to protect and secure that which for the present we hold. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) referred in his speech to the status of officers of His Majesty's Army as if it were desired to perpeutate, a condition of things which I believe the country does not desire to see perpetuated, a condition whereby officers are derived almost entirely from one class of the nation. The experience we have had has shown that it is undesirable that officers of the Army should only be drawn from one social class, but that the profession should be open to anyone who has the necessary ability and education. If there were one subject which is more interesting and hopeful than another in connection with the Army, it is the desire and efforts made to improve the education, particularly of the men.
In a Debate which took place recently I explained to the House in some detail the organisation which is being put into operation for improving the education of the men, and I explained how certificates could be taken after certain examinations had been passed, and I explained that these certificates were of four classes. Some of them related to ordinary education and others were higher education certificates. I explained also that some of the education given was directed to training a man for industries and for trades and, furthermore, that some of the education was with the desire that they should have that general knowledge which would qualify them to become officers in His Majesty's Army. The hon. Member either did not hear or read what was said on that occasion, or is not aware of the efforts which are being put forth to meet the very laudable object he has in view. I would refer him to the Regulations for Army certificates and education which were issued with the Army Orders for February, 1920. The pamphlet is called Regulations for Army Certificates and Education, to come into operation on 1st July, 1921. It is true we are only instituting that now, but the matter is not neglected or put on one side but is occupying the very earnest attention of the War Office.
The hon. Member (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle) and others have also spoken of the need for co-operation in connection with the medical side of Army administration, and advocated the formation of an Imperial Medical service. There is a very considerable amount of co-operation already between the medical staff of the War Office and the civil medical service, and there is every desire to promote and to extend that co-operation and to make use of the best knowledge which is available wherever it can be found. With regard to the question whether the Director-General if Medical Service should himself personally be a member of the Army Council instead of being represented there as he is at present by the Adjutant-General, that is a matter of policy that I will leave the Secretary of State to deal with himself.
The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Butcher) made some interesting observations which particularly touched the Department with
which I am more directly concerned, and he expressed a certain amount of concern, if not alarm, that the Finance Members' Department should be almost the only one to show an increased expenditure in cost of administration. So far as regards the staff of the Finance Member at the War Office there is some reduction in the cost. The main reason for the increase is the increase of the audit staff. The figure for 1920–21 of the audit staff is £229,637, as compared with £140,980 for the year now ending. So that there is an apparent increase of £88,657. But in 1919–20 some hundred officers and soldiers were loaned for temporary duty with the audit staff. They have now been demobilised. Their pay was not charged to the Audit Vote. Possibly it might have been better if it had been so shown, but in last year's accounts there was a good deal of war in the air as it were, and our accounts had not got back to a peace footing, so that really the cost for 1919–20 ought to be shown as £20,000 more, and that would have meant that the apparent increase would be about £68,000 instead of £88,000. This increased cost to which I have referred comes about through the formation of an audit office in Mesopotamia. The audit in Mesopotamia was conducted under the Indian Government, and during the time of war that condition had to subsist, but it is not thought quite right, nor would it be reasonable, that in time of peace this country should supply the means and the audit should be conducted by India. It is thought better that we should send out our own audit officers, which has been done, and the cost of the staff there is estimated at £49,000. In addition to that, there is the increased pay for the audit staffs generally and that amounts to £40,000, so that there is an increase of £89,000, but there has been on the other hand a saving of £20,000 through the fact that we have done away with 100 soldiers and officers who previously did it.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it not possible with the enormous reduction in the numbers of the Army to make some corresponding reduction in the numbers of the auditing staff in my hon. Friend's Department?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I think the hon. Baronet suggests by that remark that the audit work in the Army is perhaps unnecessarily expensive. I cannot agree
with him in that. The departmental audit of Army accounts is by no means too elaborate. It by no means goes too far. Also, local auditors act as financial advisors to military officers in addition to performing their regular audit work Auditing in pro-war time consisted of a test only. During the war the percentage of accounts and vouchers tested was necessarily reduced to a low point. In some directions it was as low as 1 per cent., and I do not think the hon. Baronet would say that was an excessive amount of audit. In addition to auditing, the staff may test stocktakings of various stores and the inspection of local accounting methods, with a view to securing efficiency and avoiding unnecessary elaboration. With so colossal an expenditure as has been incurred and still is incurred, in an organisation so large as the British Army and so widespread all over the world, it is absolutely essential that a correct and adequate audit should be had of the various accounts, otherwise we all know, at any rate those of us who have had business experience know, that the leakage would be very difficult to detect and might become a very large figure.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Can the hon. Gentleman give us any assurance that this large sum of over £500,000 for his Office will be diminished next year, or shortly, with the enormous diminution in the numbers if the Army?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: After the Armistice the work of the Department with which I have the honour to be connected actually increased instead of diminished. We had thousands of deceased soldiers' accounts to open up. We had their estates to look after and to distribute. We are still doing that, and we have the greatest difficulty in some cases in tracing the proper persons who should be in receipt of the small sums left by these thousands of deceased soldiers. The work in that and other directions actually increased after the Armistice. It is perfectly true that the aspiration of the hon. and learned Gentleman is a very proper one, and I believe there is reason to anticipate that as the work diminishes—and it is diminishing now—we shall be able, in the course of time, to reduce the staff of the Department. It ought to be added that there is no Department that has been more hardly worked than the
Finance Department of the War Office during the years of the war and since. They have had a very serious strain put upon them. They have suffered very gravely from the fact that the other new Government Departments that were opened had recourse to the Finance Department of the War Office to staff the new Department, and many of the best men have been removed from the Finance Department. The Department, prior to my connection with it, has worked under very great difficulties in coping with the immense burden of work thrown upon it.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested that the pay and allowances for officers should be converted to consolidated pay. I have not had time to examine that proposal in any detail, but from the little information I have been able to get since the hon. and learned Gentleman gave me notice of his intention to raise the point, I understand that the trouble would not be eliminated by the change suggested, because there are varying circumstances. At one time an officer is on duty and at another time he is on holiday. The circumstances vary, and there would still be trouble to adjust the pay in such changing circumstances. It is, I am informed, thought fairer to maintain the present system. However, I can promise the hon. and learned Gentleman that I will look into the matter.

Sir J. BUTCHER: What about the Committee?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: With regard to the suggestion that there should be a committee to examine into the matter, I cannot do more than say that I will bear the suggestion in mind and make inquiries about it. The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about the Costing Department I am afraid he rather depreciates the value of this Department. I think he is under the impression that we are spending a great deal of money and that we are not getting very much from it. Certainly, the sum of money involved is substantial, The hon. and learned Member did not find the figure in the Estimate, but if he will look on page 8 he will see that the figure is £243,380. That is instituted for the purpose of conducting what is called the costing work. This Costing Department I look upon as a most valuable Department in the War Office, When it is brought home, as it
will be brought home when the system is more perfectly instituted, that one officer or one regiment is spending more for arriving at the same result than another regiment is spending for arriving at a similar result, investigation will be instituted at once and economy ought to be effected. I think we shall save a great deal more than the cost of the Department when it is fully instituted. Hon. Members may have noticed from a remark earlier in this publication that the Costing Department is not yet in full organisation. It is only organised up to a certain point. These accounts themselves show the Costing Department's work to some extent, and hon. Members will se that they are on a different principle from the statement of accounts that used to be introduced under pre-War conditions. We intend to carry that system still further. We want to know all the various items of cost, so that comparisons may be made, and we can see whore there is extravagance or anything tending towards extravagance, and where there is economy. So valuable is this system of cost accounting thought to be that the Select Committee on National Expenditure in 1918 recommended that the system should be extended to all the Departments of State. I could not quote a better authority than that Select Committee.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Is it absolutely necessary for the purpose that this Costing Department should be a Department of the War Office, costing over £240,000? Could it not be worked through the Command Pay Offices and the Regimental Pay Offices without having this department at the War Office?

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: It is worked throughout the regiments, and it will go throughout the whole Service, but it has to be supervised and organised and regulated from the War Office. It will eventually go through the whole Army. In regard to the observations made by the hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot), who stated that the women employed by the Government, and particularly by the War Office, were underpaid and underfed, I should be very sorry if I thought there could be any substantial truth in the statement. There is, of course, this truth in it, which I think we all recognise, that almost all women's
labour in the country is underpaid as compared with the pay that is given to men. For many years I have taken a deep interest in hospital nursing and have been connected with several large organisations which have to do with the work of nursing, and I am quite free to admit, which I do readily, and as I have done before in public, that the pay of nurses has not been as high as it ought to be. The nurses have to go through years of training to arrive at a stage where they are qualified to conduct their profession, and when they have qualified after these years of training the pay which they have hitherto received, up till quite recently, was altogether inadequate. But it must not be forogotten that when the hon. and learned Member referred to the pay of a nursing sister as being from £50 to £65, he did not refer to allowances which bring the pay to the equivalent of £140. In addition to that, there are other contingent advantages, or deferred pay, in the shape of pensions. It is perfectly true that the pay of women is not high, but the War Office, and especially the Finance Department, cannot authorise payment out of line with the general payments which are made under similar circumstances by other Departments and by civil institutions. The House will be the first to object and to blame the Finance Member of the Army Council if he were to come down here and say that he had instituted pay out of proportion to what was the accepted pay for similar work in civil employment. Consequently, the hon. and learned Member who raised this point must use his influence outside as well as inside the House to remedy the evil of which he very justly complained.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: On this occasion I would like to preface my remarks by expressing my sincere gratitude and appreciation, in which, I think, I shall be joined by every Member of the House, for the work done by the late Member's friend, the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. MacCallum Scott). I think that in many hundreds, if not thousands, of homes throughout the land, the personal attention, energy and work which he has given to all the arduous and manifold difficulties of demobilisation can never be adequately understood or appreciated. Therefore, I would like to take the opportunity of conveying to the late Member's friend my appreciation of that great service. Having
given that sincere and well-deserved eulogy of his work, I would like to reply to the remarks which he made concerning our criticism, such as it was, on the policy of the present War Office. I can assure him that any silence which may have been observed on this side of the House is not due to lack of criticism. He referred to the OFFICIAL REPORT. I think it is very dangerous to refer to the OFFICUL BEPORT. The OFFICIAL REPORT. contains speeches which were made last year, very complete records of speeches of which I might remind him, such as that of his right hon. Friend on the subject of Russia. I need not weary the House at this time by quoting these speeches, and I should not be in order if I did; but everyone, knows that the policy which we advocated, the criticism which we levelled at the Government policy throughout the whole of last year has boon amply justified by the logical sequence of events in that country.
I will not pursue that subject further to-night. We are satisfied that all the criticism which we offered and all the suggestions which we put forward concerning the subject of Russia have proved that we were right, and we only offer our congratulations to the Minister of War in his adaptability in his bringing the House round without any opposition to the point of view which we advocated constantly and determinedly the whole of last year. I would like to refer specifically to the question of military missions, references to which appear on page 5, Vote A, of the Estimate. I refer particularly to the 2,226 ranks employed on foreign missions. There are many of us on this side who regard with profound suspicion the policy of these missions and the work which they are carrying out in foreign countries. We have a suspicion, nay, we have a knowledge, that these missions are employed not merely in advising these new nations, these bits of our old allies, in purely military matters, but in supporting and bolstering-up the most reactionary elements to be found in those countries. As an example I may refer to the disastrous results which are being felt throughout the whole of Europe to-day due to one of these missions. In Latvia last year 200,000, approximately, German troops were collected, organised, and drilled under Von der Goltz and Colonel Bermondt. The Secretary of State for War was fully cognisant of that operation.
He was fully apprised of the danger to the peace of Europe which was arising in that country. We are told that the Supreme Council ordered the demobilisation and disbandment of those troops. We also hear from other sources, which in my judgment were reliable, that instructions were sent through this military mission in that land to inform Von der Goltz, and latterly Colonel Bermondt, that they should see to it that that disbandment and demobilisation did not proceed too quickly.
The Secretary of State for War looked upon that force as a potential weapon which he might use in his wild adventures into Russia. Those of us who looked upon matters with a little more vision and farsightedness than he saw the danger which might arise. Anyone who is in touch with politics in the Baltic States knows that it was a common saying amongst those troops that they would probably be used to attack Berlin first before Petrograd. I know through personal evidence that the matter was fully represented to the Secretary of State for War last August. He flew over to Deauville, where the Prime Minister was taking his well-deserved holiday, and suggested a secret alliance with these men, the object of which was to attack Bolshevism. The result of that intrigue we see in the terrific cataclysm which has shaken the whole of Germany during the last few weeks and produced results whose ultimate effect it would be unwise for anyone to attempt to phophesy. That is one example of of the policy adopted by our missions in foreign countries. I could quote others. For instance, the mission to Esthonia. I am informed that an ultimatum was presented by the British and French Military Missions to the Esthonian Government, who were endeavouring to establish themselves as a free nation, trying to rush them into a war against neighbouring nations against which they have no enmity and no ill-feeling whatsoever. We cannot, in the face of this evidence, help feeling that these missions are utilised for bolstering up reactionary elements in those countries instead of strengthening the spirit of democracy, for which so many thousands of lives were lost in the last war. I could quote other examples of our missions and the bad effect produced throughout Europe. I am told that in Hungary the streets of the big towns are full of British
military missions in khaki. The same remark applies to Finland.
I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies later he will tell us a little bit of the work of these 594 officers and 1,632 men who are employed in what can only be called a politicial mission in these new Countries throughout Europe. I hope that he will give us an assurance that at least in future these men will not be employed in party politics in those countries. It is not our duty to take sides in the political matters of those new countries. Under the same heading on page 5, I look with supreme and profound dismay to the total number, 348,432 ranks, employed in those distant lands. That matter will be fully discussed later in the evening. I would only say that it is quite impossible for the British nation to take on the police duties of the whole world. It is quite impossible for this country to take on those enormous Commitments in the vast territories of Eastern Europe and Russia. We cannot make ourselves the protectors of international concessions, and while I am not going to deal with the political situation, I may say that it would be a far better policy to try to engender friendly relations with some of these new States, with the Emir Feisul, the Egyptians and people of these new nations which are putting forward with a certain amount of right their claims to independence. It would foe far better in the case of a future war to have a friendly and independent State full of good feeling towards Great Britain than to have a hostile nation subordinate and kept in that position by British bayonets.
On one or two occasions I have drawn attention to the question of the Guards' uniform. Each time I have been informed that the matter is under consideration. I hope it will be decided that, at least for the present, it is not necessary to revert to the pre-War very costly and very gaudy uniform. With the present price of materials, the outfit of a young officer entails an expenditure of over £300. If khaki was good enough for the winning of the War, it is quite good enough for maintaining the peace. As to the question of a General Staff for dealing with the control and organisation of the fighting services, members who have spoken have been almost unanimous. I approach the question of war organisation with some diffidence, because I feel
that in building up an efficient war organisation we are making jobs for people who, in order to justify those jobs, will find themselves called upon to launch the country into a new war. I think we can look upon it from another point of view. Efficiency in the control of our fighting services is bound to bring about efficiency in the control of the economies of that service. I wish that some of the hon. Members who dealt with the question of an Imperial Staff had developed the matter a little more in detail. I welcome discussions of this sort, because they give publicity to an urgent need. One hon. Member has said that it was unwise to discuss the matter in the House, and he suggested that it should be referred to a Committee. I submit that it is only by the publicity of Debate in this House that the urgency of re-organisation will be realised inside and outside the House.
The hon. and gallant Member who opened the Debate stated that the service members, that is to say, the professional members on the old Committee of Imperial Defence, hardly ever opened their mouths in the discussions, and that when my right hon. Friend the Secretary for War—the First Lord of the Admiralty as he then was—took part in those Committee meetings, doubtless because of his great grasp of detail and his magnificent originality, he rather dwarfed into insignificance some of the professional officers present. But anyone who reads the minutes of the Committee of Imperial Defence would appreciate that that was the exception and not the rule. The criticism which I have to direct against the reconstruction of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which was so ably organised and run by Sir Maurice Hankey and Commander Domvile, is that only the heads of the different services met, and that the people who did the work and worked out the details and plans were kept apart in the different Departments. What happened on those occasions? The First Lord of the Admiralty, the First Sea Lord and the Second Sea Lord, and the corresponding members of the War Office, used to meet and discuss general questions of principle. As often as not they would return to their Ministries and, if they thought fit, reverse those decisions. There was no binding decision. On the question of giving a body of that sort executive
power, I would not express an opinion at the present time. I certainly am in favour of an eventual Ministry of Defence. I do not think you can run anything on the principle of committees. If a body is to meet and to discuss policy and operations and the organisation of the fighting services, it must have power to carry those principles into effect or else it will develop into a mere debating body. Those of us who favour a Ministry of Defence will look to that to provide the nucleus of such a body. As to the need of such a body it is not necessary to bring forward arguments. Those who took part in the great War realised that the mistakes of Gallipoli and Mesopotamia, and some of the adventures in Palestine, narrowly missed being most brilliant achievements. Had there been greater means of co-ordination during the War there is no doubt that many of these escapades would have succeeded magnificently.
The War has taught us a great deal concerning staff work. Compared with 1914 the organisation of the staffs in the War Office and in the Admiralty, and indeed in the Air Ministry, has increased in efficiency tremendously. It is now a general principle that the staff dealing with future operations should be entirely divorced from the staff responsible for executive work. There exists in the Admiralty and I think in the War Office, a Department known as a Planning Division, which is entirely devoted to looking ahead, has no executive power, and spends its time in thinking what may happen six months, twelve months or two years ahead. It seems to me a very simple matter to get these three Departments, Planning Departments or their prototypes, from the Admiralty, the War Office and the Air Ministry together, possibly putting them in the same building, and so to co-ordinate the future policy of our fighting services. Another essential for effective co-ordination, is an interchange of staff officers between the services. We have to-day a beginning in that respect. I believe that two staff officers from the Air Ministry are now undergoing a military course at Camberley. If we are really to work up to the constitution of an efficient Ministry of Defence or merely a co-ordinated Imperial General Staff, that principle should be extended; we should send six or a dozen officers from each of the three services to the staff colleges of the other
sister services. We might thus produce a corps of officers competent to deal with the subject from the point of view of the service as a whole and so lay the foundation for better organisation, better control and better administration in the three fighting services.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Reference has been made by several hon. Members to the great importance of economy in the military expenditure of the country. I do not think there can be two opinions that economy is of the utmost importance at the present time. It is a thing which we preach, not only to the Government, but to all classes of the country, including, I hope, ourselves. But I hope that we will not allow the question of economy in the Army to hide from us the fact that we have very grave duties to perform for which it is necessary to maintain an efficient and sufficient Army. I am not going to enter on the question as to whether we have been right in sending military missions to various small States arising out of the break-up of great Empires, but whether the action of those military missions has been in all cases right, I can hardly myself believe that they have been engaged in egging on those peoples to fight. There is one particular part of the world as to which I do claim to have made some special study of the conditions. I refer to what was the Turkish Empire and adjoining portions of Russia. While I join with everyone in egging the pursuit of economy in the administration of the Army, I should be the last to wish them to carry out economy to such a point as to leave us without an Army great enough in numbers and efficient in organisation to carry out our duties to the people inhabiting those particular parts of the world. After all, it is our doing in the past that has kept them in the position in which they have so long suffered under the heel of Turkish tyranny, and it is our duty at present to see that they are delivered from that terrible position. I am convinced that the troops which were stationed in the Caucasus ought never to have been withdrawn. Happily, the worst of the horrors that might so easily have happened on that withdrawal did not take place, but what has happened has been bad enough.
There has been a great deal of fighting between the three new States of Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan, which might
have been prevented, and would have been, I think, if our troops had been kept there doing what was practically police duty. The best elements of the populations of the three communities desired that they should remain, but they were brought away in pursuance of the idea that we must economise at all costs. Though the worst horrors did not happen, that was due to the fact that all our troops were not entirely taken away, but some were kept at Batoum, and whilst the regular troops were taken from the interior of the Caucasus, what was practically a military mission, though under the Foreign Office, was sent out there to guide, and in some sense control, those three States and bring about peace between them, and arrange differences as to frontiers and make treaties of arbitration one with the other. It is through the influence of those British officers that to some extent good results have been brought about. I earnestly hope we shall sec more British officers in those three States, because I am quite sure if serious bloodshed is to be avoided it is absolutely necessary that there should be some power there or somebody with great influence to guide those new States. If it could be done by the League of Nations, so much the better, because that would lay aside any suspicion of any one State proceeding for its own advantage. But the League of Nations is still in its very early infancy It has not organised its own forces, and we have got to do these things meanwhile until the League of Nations is sufficiently advanced to take on this work. It is all very well to be impatient and to say that 14 months or more have elapsed since the Armistice was signed, but after all that period is a very small matter in the building up of an absolutely new system in the organisation of the world. I hope that the Govornment, while pursuing economy, will not forget the duties which the British people have, and that those duties in these parts of the Caucasus, and what was formerly the Turkish Empire can only be carried out if we have an Army which is efficient in organisation and sufficient in numbers to see that we fulfil those duties which are incumbent upon us, not only because many of these people of subject races fought as our Allies in the War, but because for generations past we, in the pursuit of British
interests, have stood in the way of the liberation of those peoples from their Turkish oppressors.
I desire to refer also to a totally different subject, namely, the enlistment of young lads in the Army of 17 or under. During war time that might have been winked at, because every well-grown lad would make a soldier, and was absolutely necessary. But in peace time, when we can afford to be more careful and more strict in these matters, we ought to act differently. Lads of 17 or under know, or are probably told, that they cannot be taken unless they are 18, and they make a declaration that they are 18, and it is exceedingly difficult to get them out. I believe that the Army is retaining these lads in many cases in a totally illegal manner, but illegal or not, I am certain that it is a thing calculated to produce a vast deal of bad feeling in this country. It is not for the honour of the country or the Army that it should go on. If you have up and down the country families who feel that their children, mere children of 16 years of age, are taken into the Army and encouraged to tell a lie about their age, I think it is calculated—

Sir A. WILLIAMSON: I cannot let that remark pass—that they are encouraged by the Army to tell a lie.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I have already explained that they know quite well, and probably are told at the time, that they cannot be received into the Army unless they are 18, and surely that amounts to saying, "If you want to come into the Army, you have got to say you are 18," and, taken with what is done afterwards, I say it amounts to encouragement. I put a question to-day asking the Secretary for War
whether his attention has been called to the case of lads under 17 years of age who enlisted without the consent of their parents, making a false declaration that they are 18 years of age or more; whether such lads are at once released from the Army if their parents give early notice and proof of their correct age; and, if not, on what grounds he claims the right to retain them in the Army against the will of their parents?
I was told that where a soldier has enlisted without his parents' consent, stating he is 18, he is discharged, after verification of his correct age, if he is still under 17 at the time when his parents apply for his release. A lad of nearly 17, we will say, disappears from home, and presently it is found that he
has enlisted. The parents have to inquire what is the proper step to take to get him out, and, as they do not keep the King's Regulations at their fingers' ends, by the time they know what has happened, perhaps he is just 17, and then we are told that he must be kept, because he is a day or two over 17 when application is made for him. I say that that is a monstrous state of things, likely to create a great deal of bad blood. Nobody wishes well to the Army more than I. I wish it to be an honoured profession for all classes, and I am sure the honour of the Army will be best served by recognising that if 18 is the age, lads are not to be kept if application is made with reasonable promptness. I know there are some cases where lads go into the Army under age and remain there six months or so, and get drilled at very considerable cost, and then, when they find they are going to be sent to India, they or their parents apply to have them out. That is not reasonable. But where the lad is applied for with reasonable promptness as soon as his parents find out where he is and how to make application, then I say that if he is under 18 he ought to be discharged from the Army, because by the law they are not supposed to be taken, I believe, if under 18. I asked that expressly of the Secretary of State to-day I said, "If they are not given up, on what ground does he claim the right to retain them in the Army against the will of their parents?" That question has not been answered, and I hope we shall be told under what law those lads are kept in. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to pursue this subject on all suitable occasions until I get a really satisfactory answer. I do it not only as a matter of right to these lads and their parents, but I am not ashamed to profess that I want to see the honour of the British Army stand high, so that the Army may be a thoroughly popular service.

9.0 P.M

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I had not intended to take part in this Debate, but the very disparaging remarks of the hon. Member for the Bridgeton Division of Glasgow (Mr. MacCallum Scott) brought me up He got up early in the Debate, when I think only the hon Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) had spoken from these Benches, and said that every Member who had spoken, with that one exception, had complimented
the Government and found no fault at all. He went on to make an attack on certain hon. Members—I do not think he meant me, because I was not in the House at the time—who opposed the Military Service Act of last year. I seem to remember the speeches that were made then, although I was not a Member, and the whole line of opposition to the Bill was that the measure was totally unnecessary. As it was, you could keep as many men as you wanted to for six months after the exchange of ratifications of peace, and, therefore, the Military Ser vice Act of last year was quite unnecessary. That our opposition was fully justified is shown, I think, by the way the Government now take credit to themselves for having got rid of what they call conscription, although I see that, by a reply given to the right hon. Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) by the Parliamentary Secretary on the 16th March, to a question asking how many men were still retained against their will in the Army, the House was informed that there was a total of 73,000 men who were put down as demobilisable. I take it that these men are being kept in the Army against their will, because if they were staying in of their own free will, they would have volunteered and got the undoubted advantages which volunteers get. Therefore, on the 16th of March there were 73,000 men being kept in the Army against their will, and I think that needs saying, because the Government are patting themselves on the back very much at having done away with conscription. Of that number, on the Rhine there is a total of 19,800 men. They cost a very large sum of money, which is being refunded to us by Germany, but every mark or pound the Germans pay us for that Army of Occupation is so much off the indemnity. I think that will be admitted, and, therefore, if we could withdraw that army from the Rhine, the money which we are getting from Germany to pay for these soldiers could go to compensate widows of merchant seamen and people of that sort, who badly need the money. What is the good of these 19,800 men? There is a Communist army of 100,000 men just across the Rhine, at present holding the Ruhr Valley. Nineteen thousand are too many really for the sake of economy, and too few to be of any practical use. They may have a moral effect, but
I very much doubt if that small number of men is an advantage. You have really a division at less than full strength on the Rhine. It is expensive and apt to become an irritant to the people, and an exile to the men, and I submit with great diffidence—I am not a military expert—that it is quite useless for any practical purpose. If any Government of this country is going to be so mad as to march an army of 19,300 men across the Rhine to deal with Communists or reactionary Germans trying to set up the Kaiser again they do not deserve to hold office for a week. The hon. Member for Govan (Mr. N. Maclean) and another hon. Member belonging to the Labour party who spoke seemed very surprised that we need this Army of 280,000 men, and they recalled the speeches made during the War. They said that they understood it was a war to end war. I admit we were told that, but they quite forget that we had a peace to end peace, that such Peace Treaties as we seem likely to have are not Peace Treaties at all, but, unless they are modified, means to lead straight to another war. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. A. Williams) wants troops in the Caucasus to protect the Armenians, but I think it would be admitted, oven by the Government spokesman, that the cause of unrest in Turkey is simply owing to the delay in the Peace Treaty and the terms of the Peace Treaty given to the Turkish representatives who went to Paris. What the Armenians have always asked for is to be armed and allowed to protect themselves, as I understand. As I said when the Air Estimates were brought forward, one-tenth of the money that we spent on Russia on munitions, if applied to Armenia, would have prevented these massacres which every Member of the House deplores. We were so engaged, however, in interfering with other countries which did not want us, that we left the Armenian problem alone, and failed in our duty there, and now, I am afraid, many innocent people have to suffer accordingly.
I do not want to go into the question of Mesopotamia. I am tired of raising that question in this House and getting no reply. I raised it last year, and my right hon. Friend told me he sympathised with me and wished he could give me the information I desired, but that he was
not in a position. The question I have always raised about Mesopotamia is this. We went to Mesopotamia to free the Arabs from the blasting rule of the Turks. I take it we went there to set the Arabs-on their feet, and not to annex country. At the worst we shall have to accept a mandate. I am glad that an attempt is to be made to raise native levies in Mesopotamia. Now I am going a little further. I understand the Emir Feisul has been crowned King at Damascus. I understand that his supporters wish to have a great Arab Empire or Arab King over those parts of Asia Minor inhabited by the Arab race. Would it not be possible to give him the mandate over Upper Mesopotamia? I admit we will, perhaps, have to remain in Lower Mesopotamia, but I certainly think that the great Hinterland might be given to the Emir Feisul as a mandatory, with, of course, such assistance in the way of technical officers and military advisers as he requires. I put that forward as a constructive suggestion, and I hope it will be considered when this extremely urgent problem comes forward. For India 62,000 men are required. India is a country, I suppose, of 350,000,000 people. If she could be given Dominion home rule, as I hope she will in the near future, she will have plenty of fighting men to protect her own borders, and I hope we shall be able to withdraw the rank and file of the Indian Army before many years are up. Hopes are put forward by the Labour party of a Labour Government in a few years, and, if so, I hope they will establish home-rule Government in India, and that the forces will be reduced to the technical experts required, as in the case of Upper Mesopotamia, in the event of a mandate being given to the Emir Feisul or anyone else.
May I refer with great delicacy to a matter which has been brought to my notice, and probably to the notice of other hon. Members in this House? I refer to this really to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of repudiation and possibly making inquiry. I do not mention this in any carping spirit. We are being told that the conduct of British troops in Ireland under certain circumstances is not exactly what it ought to be. I do not accept the statements made in propaganda leaflets, and in interested quarters, but these statements are repeated, and I think the matter wants
very carefully looking into. I am loath to mention this, because I believe the British soldier has kept his reputation for correct behaviour towards the civilian populations right through this War, and I believe he is doing his best to maintain that reputation to-day. But we are being told—I want a denial and an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that if there is anything in this it will be stopped at once—we are being told that unnecessary violence and damage are done in the houses that are raided. Hon. Members will be aware that raids are, going on in Ireland every night. Houses are being broken into during the small hours of the morning, and search is made for suspects, documents, and the rest of it. In recent weeks complaints have come from Ireland that the soldiery who take part in these raids wantonly destroy furniture and ornaments. As I say again, I do not accept these bare statements, and, in fact, I look upon them with very grave doubt. Nevertheless they are being made, and, of course, are being repeated in America and Australia, and are doing us a great deal of harm. I do hope, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to deny them absolutely. We are told that pictures and ornaments are being deliberately destroyed out of spite. One case I have in mind is that of a Sinn Fein bank, so-called, although it is an old-established bank and non-political, which was raided in Dublin. I think it was in Bachelors' Walk. This bank was raided, and a large sum of money taken away with documents and other things. We are told that the inkpots were deliberately broken, that the pens and rulers were smashed, that the pictures on the walls were broken, and that the chairs were taken up and broken against the walls.
These are small things, but they irritate people and make friction. I hope that it is not true;, and, if it were done, that it was not done by the soldiers who raided the bank. If there be any sort of idea of exacting reprisals or following out a policy of terrorism by conduct of this sort, it really is a most terrible state of affairs, and thoroughly un-English. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to favour us with a very complete denial, because it is a matter affecting me, the honour of the whole of the British Array. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he saw
the letter of Mr. Erskine Childers, the son of a former Lord Chancellor, and a gentleman who did very excellent service during the War. Of course, he may have views about the rights of liberty in his own country which are objectionable to Members in this House, but, nevertheless, he is a gentleman of very high character, and he declares that when the troops raided his house in the small hours of the morning—he does not complain about the raids; he recognises that in a state of war they are inevitable—the officers came into his drawing room smoking. He wrote to the general officer commanding the troops, and that officer replied expressing regret that this unseemly conduct, as he expressed it, had taken place. We are now raiding en masse in the hoe of here and there finding something criminal, and, if this sort of thing is being done, if officers go into people's houses smoking—remember the women are pulled out of their beds just as they are and the beds are searched by the officer.?—and if their whole bearing be that of contempt, it will only do harm and leave the seeds of hatred when we finally do withdraw our Army of Occupation from Ireland, which I hope to Heaven we shall do soon.
Several hon. Members have spoken about the need of a Joint Staff, and of a Committee of Imperial Defence. I suppose we are going to need a very large Army in the near future. It is due to our policy abroad in continually spreading the beneficient sway of British rule—and it is going to cost a few extra shillings on the Income-tax. I hope hon. Members will cheer when they hear the Budget. I am prepared to fight a by-election with any hon. Member on the question whether we shall hold Mosul and pay an extra eightcenpence on the Income-tax. While We have these large forces, however, do let us have them efficient, and, above all, do let us have a Joint Staff. There is really very little co-operation still between the Army, Navy and Air Forces. There may be between the Army and Air Force because the seals of office are held by the same Minister, but I am sure that there is no close co-operation between the Navy and the Air Force. A Joint Staff is really badly needed, and I hope that it has been formed. I hope that it is doing the spade work of the Committee of Imperial Defence and that it is studying the
problems of the League of Nations from the military, naval and Air Force point of view. I would like to see a Joint Staff of all the nations that are in the League of Nations, a Joint Staff of all the Associated Powers of the League of Nations meeting together to discuss the joint use of force when force has to be used, because, while human nature remains what it is, there will have to be some sort of force, and we want an international force instead of a national force. That is the next great step forward, and I hope, while we are waiting for a Joint Staff of the League of Nations, that the Joint Staff representing the Army, the Navy and the Air Force are beginning to consider some of the problems that are certain to arise. The League of Nations is having great responsibilities placed upon it already Some people say that they are too great. It is going to undertake the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus, and we are being continually invited to refer other questions to it. I wish someone would put the Irish question to it. The League of Nations is a growing thing. It is having greater and greater burdens, and that fact must not be forgotten. Joint action among nations, as we saw in the War, cannot be done overnight. I do not know how long it took us to get joint command of the Armies on the Continent. We never got joint command at sea, and because we did not the War lasted very much longer than it ought to have done. We are going to have the same trouble if ever the League of Nations has to get busy and justify itself. Unless previous staff work is undertaken it is going to be a failure, and the League of Nations will end in discredit.

Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY accordingly considered in Committee.

[Sir E. CORNWALL, in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY ESTIMATES, 1920–21.

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
A. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 525,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland at Home and Abroad, excluding His Majesty's Indian Possessions, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1921.

Major BARNES: I beg to move, "That the number to be maintained be reduced by 15,000."
I had hoped that we should have had a statement, first of all, from the right hon. Gentleman. It would have had many advantages, and it would have had special advantages for me. It might have given me some information which would have forestalled some of the criticisms that I am about to make. That would have been an advantage to the right hon. Gentleman in relieving him of the necessity of listening to a portion of my speech. I should have had the benefit of his example, for every speech that he makes is a model for other speakers who follow him. If he had spoken, undoubtedly, he would have filled the House, and I might have hoped to have detained for my arguments an even larger audience than I have at the present time. Last, but not lest, I should to some extent have escaped the peril of his reply. I must confess that until I heard the speeches of some hon. Members I had not quite realised the enormity of my procedure in proposing to reduce this Vote. Some Members seem to feel something of the horror that must have been felt by the Jews when Uzza laid his sacriligeous hands upon the Ark, and probably they are surprised that the vengeance of the Almighty has not fallen upon him. Perhaps that omission may be made up by the right hon. Gentleman, who has the capacity to fill any office and to discharge any duty, when he comes to reply. I hope there is not going to be any suggestion made that, because we on this side of the House differ from other hon. Members about the size of the Army, we lag in any respect behind in the affection and admiration we have for it. I think it may fairly be said that one may feel just as much affection for a small army as for a large one. There are some men who like big women, and some who love little ones. I think it would be a curious thing if our ardour were measured by the cubic capacity of that upon which we bestow it.
Undoubtedly the War has brought a great change in the place which the Army holds in the affection of the people of this country. I think it would not be unfair to say that, prior to the War, the Army might have been described as the preserve of a class and the reserve of the
mass. It depended upon what you wanted—whether it was distinction or extinction. Those were the chief impulses which led men into it. Since that time, the life blood of the country has poured through the veins of the Army, and the graves of the Army hold too many of the hopes of this people for our generation to feel for it anything but pride. I suppose there is not a family in the land which does not share in the sad yet proud distinction that comes to those who are kin to those who have died for their country. While they remember that—and how can they ever forget?—no Secretary of State for war can ever come to this House with proposals for the care and the comfort and the security of the Army without feeling assured of the sympathy, the understanding, and the support of this House.

Major-General Sir J. DAVIDSON: And The adequate size.

Major BARNES: That, of course, is the whole point at issue. I hope we shall not be told, because we differ about the size of the Army, that we have no regard for the past of this country and no interest in its future. The Liberal party, now on these Benches not long ago was in power, and probably at no very distant date will be in power again. They have had the responsibilites of government, and will fulfil them once again, and I am quite sure that no one on these Benches would deny for one moment to the Government in power a proper provision for the security and safety of the Empire. We fully appreciate the task of the Army, the difficult and dangerous positions in which it finds itself, and the share it takes in the development of semi civilised and barbarous lands—lands whose development is essential to the wel fare of the world British administration in those parts of the world, as well military as civil, is as much appreciated on this side of the House as in any other quarter. The issue that is before the House in this Motion is not an issue that in any way rests upon a difference between hon. Members of this House in their appreciation of the task and the part of the British Army in the great responsibilities of this country. On this side of the House we do not want to make any niggardly acknowledgment of the great work that has been done by the right hon. Gentleman since the Armistice.
He must have listened with a great deal of pleasure during this Debate to the eulogy that was passed upon him by his late Parliamentary Secretary. It has been very well said that no man is a hero to his valet; but a man who can retain the admiration of his Parliamentary Secretary must possess capacities and qualities even beyond those discernible to the general public. All we would say is that perhaps there is just a little tendency on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, and on the part of the War Office to just a little too much complacency, on the question of doing away with the necessity for conscription. I am sure we are all glad that the necessity has gone. None of us liked it. Those who voted for it, I think, liked it no more than those who voted against it, and, while we willingly admit that the right hon. Gentleman and the War Office have had a great share and part in rendering it unnecessary, and we are prepared to give him the fullest credit for it, in the long run we think that perhaps, after all, the greatest credit rests upon the men who have volunteered. Whatever the capacity of the Secretary of State for War, and whatever the administrative ability of the War Office, that would never have succeeded if it had not been that, in the spirit of the people of this country, there are qualities that respond to the necessities of the country. It is upon those qualities that we have relied in the past, and they have proved in the present to be all that we required, and have enabled the right hon. Gentleman to assure us that the necessity for conscription has passed.
One thing we particularly welcome in these Estimates is the greater attention which has been paid to education in the Army. I am inclined to think that the Board of Education might have learned a good deal from the educational work that has gone on in the Army. Everyone who has had anything to do with military work at all, must have appreciated during the War what splendid educational methods were employed. The small classes, the individual instruction, and the co-operation between teacher and class inside the Army, furnish, I think, examples which might well be followed in civilian education. But I can fancy that, if the Minister of Education were here, he might retort, "Give me the same money to spend on the education of the civilian population and I will show you as good results."
I see that the Estimate provides for something like £2,560,000 to be spent on about 250,000 men, or about £10 a head. A little more than £1 a head is spent on the education of the civilian population. I can only hope, and I think the hope is shared by us all here, that the educational work in the Army will have its reaction upon the general educational work of the country. It must mean a better spirit in the Army, and that is the surest guarantee of what we all desire to see—a real democratisation there. I do not propose to examine these Estimates technically. That would be presumption on the part of one who is little more than a layman in these matters, and I leave it for experts. I will only, in a broad and brief way, draw attention to some of the things in the Estimates which seem to me to support the Motion I propose.
One of the peculiar things about Parliamentary papers, which strikes new Members, is that both covers are printed alike, and that was what led me to open my Estimates at the last page. I do not regret that, because if you examine the Estimates I think you will agree with me that the most fascinating pages in the book are those at the end, because upon those pages are entered the names of those men to whom allowances have been granted because they have won for themselves the glorious distinction of the Victoria Cross. Two or three pages of names are printed in small black type. Somewhere, one imagines, they ought to be printed in letters of gold, but they are there. Apart from the call which there is to the imagination from the perusal of those names, there is this very interesting thing about them, that the allowances made to those men, the annuities granted to them, are on the pre-War scale. In this respect the Army Estimates are no higher than they were prior to the War. Valour has not increased in value, and there is a good sound economic reason for it, because it is scarcity that sends up prices, and there has been no scarcity in bravery, for the supply has been equal to the demand right through the War. Therefore, as far as this item is concerned, it has been a cheap War. The charge in this respect is £3,250, which I suppose will have to be borne by the Budget. When one contrasts this amount with the charge of £350,000,000 for the National Debt, one realises the difference of the
reward that comes to those who have made their bit and those who have made their bit. In this respect the hopes that one has of getting back to a pre-War basis are not justified by these Estimates, in which economy begins and ends on the last page. I do not think it would be fair to charge the Government with inconsistency, because there can be no inconsistency unless there is a policy, and the Government have no policy.
When we turn to the figures for the War Office Staff, we find that it cost in 1914 £865,000, whilst in 1921 the total Estimate is £3,427,000, or something like five times as much. The cost of the Finance Members' Department alone is more than the whole of the War Office Staff in 1914. I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to justify this expenditure, but if we are to test it by such results as are given to us, this expenditure hardly seems justifiable. I suppose the Finance Department is responsible for these Estimates, but they only reached our hands on Saturday morning, which is hardly sufficient time for this Debate, and the ink was not dry on the copy that came to me. Besides this, there is clear evidence that the proofs have not been properly read, as many references are missing and pages are blank. In fact, these Estimates are very much like the original edition of "Tristram Shandy," which was very plentifully interspersed with blank pages, which was supposed to add to the interest of the book. Whether these blank pages in the Estimates are intended to provide room for additional expenditure I do not know.
There is one notable economy at the War Office, and it is that the salary of the Secretary of State has been halved. We were assured the other day by the right hon. Gentleman that the work is being done better. Apparently he is doing the War Office work with one hand. I tried to find some classical parallel to the right hon. Gentleman's task. I know that he appreciates classical parallels because in the speech he made on the Vote of Credit he said that the only parallel he could find for the position of the British Empire at the present time could be found by going back to the age of Antoine. For the classical parallel I have found I have had to go back a great deal further. I had to go back to the infant Hercules of whom it was said that in his cradle he was
attacked by two serpents, each of which he slew with one hand. I am not sure whether the position of the War Secretary in this respect will be one which will meet with the approval of my hon. Friends around me, because he is doing the job for half the money.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Blacklegging.

Major BARNES: Whatever colour the legging may be, the right hon. Gentleman is very nimble in getting through his duties. He is, at any rate, an exponent of the principle to which he has pledged himself, for he has relaxed the trade union regulations in his case and increased the output. However much my hon. Friends may deprecate the right hon. Gentleman's action towards Labour, when he increases production he is a very good example of his own principle. As to any real economy in this matter, one cannot be quite sure whether halving the salary does not mean doubling the staff, and that is a thing we have yet to find out. If the right hon. Gentleman had been able to give his whole time to the work, perhaps the Estimates might have been completed sooner, and perhaps they would have been more presentable when completed, because they are very slovenly. Probably no harder term could be applied to the War Office, because attention to little things are the essence of the true performance of a public duty. We find page after page left blank, and it will be serious if we find that they have to be filled up.

Mr. CHURCHILL signified dissent.

Major BARNES: I will not waste time on these details—[HON. MEMBERS: Hoar, hear!"]—because they are comparatively small matters. The real point here is that Army expenditure follows policy. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman has reserved his reply in order that he may deal with the questions of policy which determine the amount we have to spend on the Army. I do not know what part he proposes to play tonight in the matter. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will present himself to-night, as he did in the Debate on the Vote on Account, as the humble instrument of a policy decided upon by the Government, or whether we shall see him as a Minister who plays an extremely important part in deciding the policy. It is our policy in Ireland,
Egypt, India, Germany, Turkey and our Imperial expansion, that must determine the size of our Army and the amount of our military expenditure. We are asking for this Vote to be reduced by 15,000 men. I am willing to admit that it lies upon us to show where that reduction can be made without affecting the safety of the Kingdom, because, after all, as has been very well said by an hon. Member, we have got to take the facts as they are. However much we may condemn the policy of the Government in some respects, however much we may think it has landed us in difficulties, yet in his capacity as Secretary for War the right hon. Gentleman has to accept the results of Government policy and to provide for them.
It would not be fair on our part that we should ask for reductions that would be impossible and that might, if carried out, not only place the Army itself, but the country and the Dominions as a whole, in a position of danger and insecurity. But I think it is not difficult to show that the reduction for which we ask can be obtained without incurring any of these consequences. To ask for this reduction of 15,000 is asking for a 5 per cent. reduction. That is not an extravagant demand. It is not one which can be resisted as the demand of idealists. Put in the way I have put it, it seems a very plain, calm kind of remark. It is not a great deal in these times when we have to look at every million pounds to see what we can save. We had the Chancellor of the Exchequer here the other day almost imploring us to show him where we could save £5,000,000. This is an effort to respond to that appeal. If this reduction be granted the Chancellor will certainly get his £5,000,000 and I think a good deal more.
Let us look at the policy at home. In 1914 the Home Army consisted of 138,000 men; in 1920 it is 161,000, or 22,000 more. What are these men for? Not for Germany, because we were told by the right hen. Gentleman himself that the 1914 Army had no relation at all to Germany. The fact that Germany was down and out of it now would not, we were told, affect the strength of the Army, It is not for Germany. There is a great force in Turkey. It is not for Imperial expansion, that is provided for elsewhere. They cannot be for a reserve, these 22,000 men. We have thousands of reservists in this country already. As
to the Middle East, we are told that the garrison there will be reduced by something like 30,000 men. So that the Home Army can only be for home uses. One asks, therefore, what do we want in this country with 22,000 men more than were required in 1914? The Government apparently engaged in showering benefits on the people. One can hardly imagine that the result of that will be to produce such discontent as will require 22,000 extra men to subdue it. There would seem to be no need for an allowance of men for civil disorder. If such occurred, could it not be dealt with by the civic authorities? The Government have reorganised the whole of the police forces, broken it as a trade union and have attached it to themselves by a very lavish increase of pay and pensions. When D.O.R.A. was being put through the House we were asked to sanction an extension for the provision of special constables on the very ground that these special constables were to be used in place of the military.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Vote A is for the maximum number of men. Parliamentary sanction for the maximum number of men who are with the Colours in any one year must not exceed that limit. Therefore the Army is falling, and the final demobilisation, the demobilisation of the conscripts and the winding up on the 1st of April, the beginning of the new financial year is the date on which the largest number of men will be with the Colours in every part of the world. It is simply a question that we are bound to have statutory authority for the largest number of men who happen to be with us in any one year.

Major BARNES: I gather that the figures which are down in the Estimates are figures which the right hon. Gentleman expects to have—not merely paper figures.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, No I They are the men I shall have on April 1st. So far as we can judge from that date we shall fall continuously during the year. It is not our intention to keep a larger force in this country than we had before the War.

Major BARNES: I understand these are the maximum figures?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes.

Major BARNES: And that they will fall?

Mr. CHURCHILL: They are falling!

Major BARNES: How far they are going to fall the right hon. Gentleman does not know? What we are asking is that the maximum figures should be put at 15,000 less than they are in the Estimates. I take it that the figures in the Estimates have some relation to the expenditure?

Mr. CHURCHILL: It will be quite impossible to have 15,000 less men on April 1st, than we are asking the House for. Whatever the decision of the Committee may be it would be impossible not to have these men. The only thing that would happen would be that the food and pay of these men would be unprovided for.

Major BARNES: These explanations make it difficult to follow the right hon. Gentleman. The total figure down in the Estiamates is some 525,000 men, of whom 176,000 are addition numbers carried on the strength, and the others are men who are definitely located in different parts of the world. So many at home, so many in France, Germany, Egypt, and so on. I do not quite understand the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman. These are not fairy figures. These are real men, and 349,000 are the figures arrived at. The right hon. Gentleman imght himself have arrived at the figures of 15,000 less or more. We are asking him to guess again. The Estimates show definite figures and a definite cost There are so many men on the Rhine. Our Motion does not ask that any of these should be withdrawn. The same applies to Egypt and the Middle East. We do not ask that any of those shall be withdrawn.

Mr. CHURCHILL: We are now within ten days of the 1st April. On that date there will certainly be the number of men that are set out in the Estimates. We can do nothing to alter these numbers at that date. From that date these men will continue to be reduced. If the Motion of my right hon. Friend were to be carried, all that would happen would be that Parliamentary authority would be lacking to maintain and pay for 15,000 men. These 15,000 men would be where they are, and you can no more alter that than you can the weather.

Major BARNES: As far as I can understand the argument of the right hon. Gentleman is that it is of no use the House doing anything at all, because whatever men there are there they are, and whatever the House may do does not make any difference at all. But it seems to mo that on the Estimates it is proposed to give the right hon. Gentlemen power to carry on not for the next ten days, but for the year 1920–21.

Mr. CHURCHILL: The question of money comes in here.

Major BARNES: But these are Estimates to carry on for next year, and to provide for 348,000 men.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, I really must correct that. It is quite impossible to accept that view. Vote A deals with the maximum number of men that may be employed on any given day, and the other Votes regulate the amount of money that may be spent. The amount depends on the number that may be employed.

10.0 P.M.

Major BARNES: I take it we are asked to vote a definite number of men, and if this House votes that number that will carry with it an obligation to pay these men. If the House votes for 15,000 men less, surely that must have a corresponding effect on the Estimate? The point I had tried to make is that the reduction of 15,000 men can be made without interfering with the right hon. Gentleman's arrangements for men on the Rhine or in any of the other areas for which provision has to be made. The provision for the home Army is the same as for 1914, and upon these figures as they stand, without making any deduction from the resources which the right hon. Gentleman has for discharging our responsibilities in various parts of the world—responsibilities which he admits are diminishing—and without entrenching in any way by a single man on the resources available for the Rhine, for Egypt, for Constantinople, and for the Middle East, we say he can give the House these 15,000 men off Vote A. The demand for this is not preposterous, and the answer, to my mind, is a purely technical one. If the Amendment were carried it would afford a certain amount of financial relief. It may be it would amount to £5,000,000 or £6,000,00, a small sum perhaps compared with the demands
that are being made, but very considerable from another point of view.
At the present time we are dealing with an Unemployment Bill for which something like £4,000,000 a year has been set aside. A question has arisen as to whether it is not possible to increase the benefits under the Bill, but there is opposition from the Treasury. If the right hon. Gentleman can see his way to effect the saving we suggest on the Army Estimate, that would solve the problem and enable the insurance benefit to be raised right throughout the country, and that would be a very great boon to many people. This House too is interested in the matter of pro-war pensions, and has passed a Resolution that men pensioned for services rendered prior to 1914 should have their pensions increased. We have been told by the Treasury that that cannot be done. Efforts have been made to find out what the cost would be, and the estimate varies from £3,000,000 to £6,000,000. Again, if our proposal to reduce the Army Estimate were accepted, while it would not hamper the right hon. Gentleman in the discharge of his responsibilities, it would enable the Treasury to provide the additional sum to raise the pensions of pre-war pensioners. If we can save money from military expenditure, and thereby alleviate the hardships of this deserving class of old servants of the State, I think it would be a very good thing, and it would certainly meet with the sympathy of a large number of Members of the House.

Sir D. MACLEAN: I would like to ask the Secretary of State for War a question in order to clear up the conversation which took place just now between him and my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment. The point is a rather technical one. I understand the Secretary of State to say that there will be the number of men provided for in this Vote in the service on the 1st April.

Mr. CHURCHILL: Inevitably.

Sir D. MACLEAN: And therefore, if this reduction is passed the War Office will be put in a quite impracticable position because it cannot carry out the directions of the House between now and the 1st April

Mr. CHURCHILL: Quite so.

Sir D. MACLEAN: And there is the contingency of the men being unpaid. I do not think, however, that that can really happen. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain. If these men are discharged before the 1st April they will be paid up to date, and all claims they may have against the State will have to be met. It may be that the form of my hon. and gallant Friend's Amendment is not technically correct, but in substance I think the point is quite clear. I want, however, to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the urgent need for the development of education in the Army. Five years of war have produced an atrophy in education among the young fellows who are now coming up for military training, and it is clear that there is a very regrettable lack of education among those joining the Colours. The number of illiterates is unprecedented. It is larger than at any time during the last 15 or 20 years. That is a condition of things which is no doubt inevitable. The father has been away at the Front. The mother has had thrown upon her the burden of the care and custody of the family. There has been a slackening all round, owing to the absence of male teachers from the schools, and the consequence has been a great growth in the number of illiterates, and a slackening of training among the young, which is reflected in general education throughout the British Army. I know my right hon. Friend is much interested in this. I am sure he will agree also that the guardians, parents and other relatives of the young fellows joining the Army would be very glad indeed to know that their relatives are going to be specially taken care of in this most important matter of training. I should much like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on what has been done in the Army of the Rhine in this respect. I have had sent to me a very interesting booklet dealing with the General Commercial College at Cologne, a former educational establishment belonging to the Germans. It seems to me a wholly admirable piece of work, and if it denotes a new educational spirit in the Army not only will it be good for the British Army but for British citizenship when the "men now in the ranks of the Army rejoin their civilian fellow-citizens.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. We are asked, I
understand, to vote a number of men for the year 1920–21. We voted men and money up to the end of the present financial year, and this Vote is simply and entirely concerned with the men and their payment and comfort for the following year.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir E. Cornwall): It is not for me to give a ruling upon it. The Committee has heard what the Minister has said.

Mr. CHURCHILL: There should be no difficulty in deciding the point the hon. and gallant Gentleman has raised as a point of Order. The Estimates he holds in his hand state quite clearly that the authority we ask for applies to the year 1920–21. That means the financial year 1920–21. Having disposed of that damaging point, perhaps I may address myself to the course of this discursive and interesting and at the same time satisfactorily tepid Debate. I hardly remember having been responsible for a Department during a considerable number of years when a day of Estimates has passed so very tranquilly and so very pleasantly. The storms of last year seem to have been succeeded by halcyon weather. It has been said by the historian "Happy is the nation whose annals are blank in the pages of history." Happy is the Department whose annals are dull in the pages of the Official Report. I do not mean to suggest that this Debate, which has been so tranquil, has not be filled with solid matter and with searching and pertinent enquiries very proper to the character of the discussion, but I feel that the temper of the House, the character of the speeches, many of which I acknowledge most gratefully, and the general atmosphere deserve a considerable recognition of the fact that the War Office since last year has got a great deal nearer to firm ground and to a peaceful and satisfactory state of things than was thought possible last year. Several minor points have been mentioned. My right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) raised the question of education in the Army, which was also raised by another hon. Member. We are making a great feature of the increase of education in the Army in the present Estimates. It is not only elementary education. The intention is to train the minds of the soldier, to offer to him a strong mental diet as an aid to the discharge of his
ordinary work and as a means of fitting him to resume his place in civil life at the end of his military service. Now that we are paying the soldier in the British Army what might very reasonably be called a trade wage, we are going to get men who will not be content with the simple standards of former times. We are bound to educate the Army if we are to keep abreast of the social status of the soldier and the aspirations which will Come from that improved social status. It is quite true that during the War the general degeneration of our domestic life has produced a great setback in the national standard of recruits coming into the Army. The percentage of illiterates has increased very largely, and there has also been a decline in the physical health of the youths joining. In the last two or three years of the War the ordinary means of education were starved and everyone had to go on short commons, and it will take a year or two of very great effort and recuperation to enable the manhood of the nation, mental, physical and moral, to recover the pre-War standard, let alone surpass it. We shall do our utmost to develop this system of education, and I will take steps, in view of the interests which is shown in this matter in the House, to lay a special report during this Session, giving in detail all the steps we are taking to spread education amongst our soldiers both at home and abroad.
Another minor topic was raised by the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Neil Maclean). He raised a question which I have frequently heard discussed here, namely, an amnesty for all military offenders in penal servitude either at the close of the War or who have been sent to penal servitude since the War. A general sweeping amnesty would have been absurd. A number of these men are in penal servitude for murder, others for gross civil offences of a most terrible character, others for military offences of a very grievous character—such as desertion to the enemy, mutiny with violence, threatening to kill superior officers, and desertion in the sense, not of a man being absent a certain time and then being apprehended after he had shown no intention of quitting the service finally, or of a man deserting from one corps and going into another, but men who laid low at different base ports, hiding from place to place and living by thieving and under
very disreputable circumstances month after month while their comrades were being shot down on the fighting fronts. Such are the cases, but how many of them are there? The total number was 171 men in penal servitude last year, and 22 others were sent to penal servitude since the War ended. That is a total of 193. No one can say that these figures require the introduction of a general amnesty. Obviously they are so small that they enable individual treatment to be meted out. That is what we are doing. Those 171 are only one-third of the number who were there eight or nine months ago, I have directed the most stringent revision to be made in every case, and, wherever it is possible, that release should be given. But these are 171 men, the large proportion of whom are civil offenders, who would be in an ordinary convict prison, but who, as they were in uniform when they committed the crime for which they were convicted, are all Army men.

Major O'NEILL: Is that the total number imprisoned?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am talking of penal servitude. There are about from 150 to 200 men who are in detention barracks, which is not a form of ordinary imprisonment, but a form of severe strenuous drill, training and exercise. Those 171 men have had their cases reviewed, and we have remitted about three-fourths of the sentences. But a man, for instance, leads a mutiny at Calais, a dangerous mutiny, which might have caused a thousand of our own men to be killed or wounded, though, thank God, it passed off without that. He is sentenced to death. The sentence is commuted to penal servitude for life. That is reduced to 12 years imprisonment. It is reviewed again and reduced to three years, of which one and a quarter have now-elapsed. It is obvious that there is no case of great hardship here. All these cases have been individually reviewed and the sentences enormously reduced, and in a very short time, two or three years, practically every man, except those who are in for the grossest civil offences, will be released. That is a much better way of dealing with it than by a sweeping amnesty such as might be given by an oriental despot who had succeeded by violence to the throne and who took pleasure in releasing the political male
factors with whom his predecessors had filled the gaol.

Mr. WATERSON: Do the 70 men charged with crime in Russia come within the scope of the cases which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. They come under the Admiralty which reviews them. I repeat the invitation to Members of the House who are interested in this matter that if they know any hard cases and they let us have the facts these cases shall be the subject of review. Another case mentioned has been that of the 18-year-old recruits, the recruits who joined when they were under 18 years of age. Our rule at present is that if a man is under 17 years of age, and it is said that he is over 18, we let him go. If he is not under 17, but over 17, we claim the right to keep him as long as we think it necessary. I think that is a rough-and-ready rule. Up to the present moment I have been engaged in desperately building up an Army. I have not been "in a position to refuse any reasonable offer when tendered on the part of a young man who makes a false answer on his attestation paper and says he is over 18 years of age when he is under. But recruiting is good. Sometimes it amounted to 3,000 men in a week, whereas 30,000 a year was the average pre-war recruiting. In consequence one is able to apply continuously a refining process to the Army, to give relaxations which we have not been able to give hitherto, to reopen purchase and to deal with hard cases of people who enlisted under ago; and, on the other hand, to stiffen up the physical standard in every direction and generally to improve the individual value of the numbers included under Vote A. If recruiting keeps going at the present level I hope during the course of the Session to be able to effect considerable improvements in the personnel, and I must say I should like to meet, if it were possible, the wishes of parents, anxious to withdraw a boy, who from patriotic motives had enlisted before he was the right age. Perhaps if that question is raised in three or four months, when I know better where we are, I shall be able to give an answer more satisfactorily.

MR. N. MACLEAN: Is there any Army Regulation that entitles you to keep them?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, these are matters which can easily be tested in the Courts.

Mr. MACLEAN: By whom?

Mr. CHURCHILL: By any person who chooses to take action.

Mr. MACLEAN: Have you not yourself, in answer to that same question, said that there is no such Regulation?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the course we are pursuing is a legal course. Otherwise, I need not say, I should not have pursued it, but if there is a difference of opinion, it would be a far better course to test the matter in the Courts.

Mr. MACLEAN: At whose expense?

Mr. CHURCHILL: The litigant who brings a suit usually assumes the responsibility.

Mr. MACLEAN: How can you suggest that, in the case of a poor family?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am advised that the course we are pursuing is a legal course. If the hon. Gentleman challenges that he should unfold a legal argument in support of his case, and I can then have the advantage of the advice of the Attorney-General, and no doubt supply him with the counter-arguments. I base myself on the fact that we are advised that we are thoroughly within our rights. Another point was raised by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness). He deplored the abolition of the Machine Gun Corps, and he used a number of extremely well couched arguments to show that the Machine Gun Corps was a much better manner of organising the machine guns of the Army than the method we are adopting. That is a matter which par excellence is one in which you must allow military experts to decide. I do not for a moment say there are not many directions in which the political head of a fighting Department has not a decided knowledge of affairs, but there are in the organisation of a machine gun corps, and as to whether it is better organised with battalions or in separate corps, very big arguments on either side, and surely this is a matter on which I ought to defer to the opinion of the experts.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Is it a decision on military grounds or on grounds of economy, with a view to saving?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I do not exclude or despise what I call grounds of economy, and the position which I placed before the military authorities was one which took into consideration a certain limit of finance which we allowed ourselves for our military expenditure, and in making their arrangements they had the feeling that if they expended money on this there would be so much less money to expend on that and they had to balance one set of expenditure against another. The principal reason which decided us in this direction has been the fact that if you start all these separate corps, Machine Gun Corps and so forth, you have a number of more or less blind-alley departments in the military service; that is to say, branches of the Service which give very good employment to young officers, lieutenants and captains, and a certain number of majors and one or two colonels, but absolutely no chance to that body of officers of appointments to general officers, which must in the main proceed in relation to the knowledge of the whole military service. That was the main reason on which that decision was taken. I think there is a great deal to be said for the point of view of my hon. and gallant Friend, but, on the whole, I think the other argument prevailed. It is certainly an argument which has the united authority of those military experts on whose advice and opinion in this matter I am bound to defer. My hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Fareham (Sir J. Davidson), spoke about the Yeomanry and called attention to what he described a weak decision, to allow the Yeomanry, if they wanted, two years in which to turn round and make up their minds whether or not they will take up the new arms we require of them. I do not think it is a weak decision at all. it is of course very easy to take a strong decision if you have got the power, but under a voluntary system when you are raising a Territorial Force you have not the power to make orders which have been issued from Ministers of conscriptionist countries. You have to bring people along with you and to study local and traditional feeling, and I am doing so in trying to recruit for the Territorial Force. It seems to me if you said "either
you take this entirely new form of service at once or else you are disbanded" you would fail to produce the numbers of men required and these units, some of great antiquity going back one hundred and eighty and one hundred and sixty years, would be blotted out altogether, and that I should regret. On the other hand, you get the men together as a formed body, with all the esprit de corps and with the revival of all memories of the War to unite them, and you put to them the strong case for this change into a more modern form of service than cavalry. The French have reduced their cavalry from ten to four divisions, and similar reductions must be in contemplation in the mounted forces of the British Empire if we are to have the scientific Army which we require, but I think it is very sensible, and not at all weak, to take a couple of years in trying to effect an evolution like that and in trying to effect it in such a way as not to lose the personnel. Then my hon. and gallant Friend went on to quote with approbation the behaviour of the Hampshire Carabineers, who, he said, had volunteered to a man to assume the new duties of artillerymen. Having been given the option, many units have done that. If that is a condemnation of a weak policy, I do not quite know what form eulogy would take upon it. There is one more question of detail to which I must refer. We had a very interesting maiden speech from the hon. and gallant Member for St. Albans (Lieut.-Colonel Fremantle), who spoke with great fluency and knowledge upon the subject of the reduplication of the various branches of the medical service in the Army and in the Government service. I do not propose to go into that except to say that his contribution to the Debate will be carefully studied and examined by those in the War Office who are specially concerned with that subject. The only point, if I may criticise, in the speech at which it seemed to me that he pressed his argument too far was where he seemed to argue that defeat, coupled with good sanitation, was more desirable than victory attended by defective medical arrangements. That, I thought, was taking it a little too far.
I leave the minor points which have been raised in the discussion, and I come to the two or three larger issues which hon. Gentlemen have raised. First of all,
there is this Government question of the military organisation of the State—I use the word "military" in its largest sense—the joint General Staff of the Ministry of Defence. The Committee of Imperial Defence before the War were really nothing more than a secretariat of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister summoned to a conference, over which he himself presided, a conference which had a secretariat of its own, whatever Ministers, experts, or outsiders he might think fit, and this body, with permanent records, constituted the only instrument in the State for the sustained study of general strategical problems. No one must underrate the extraordinary good work done by the Committee of Imperial Defence before the War. We owe to the researches of that body the War Book, which was in existence in August, 1914, which has been laboriously compiled, largely by the exertions of Colonel Han-key, and which, when the moment came, enabled a certain number of perfectly good orders to be issued and decisions to be taken, almost unconsciously, by the Government of the day, as a result of which an enormous number of things happened in their proper sequence all over the country, and placed us in a tolerably safe position when this great storm broke upon us. Whatever may be the organisation of the staff of the three Departments, the Committee of Imperial Defence, as the great instrument by which the Prime Minister asserts his view and exercises his responsibility over the whole field of military policy, will certainly continue and endure. It will be a great mistake, however, to suppose that any revived or rejuvenated Committee of Defence would in any way bridge the gap or gulf. If the gulf is to be bridged between the Navy and the Army—to take the two old services—it can only be by the building up for a number of years of a breed—or brand if you like—of officers, well-trained at a common staff college, who will have acquired a common body of doctrine, which is not purely particularism in regard to the Army, Navy or Air, but which deals with the study of that very wicked thing war—if I may mention the word—as a whole, not from a departmental point of view.

Sir S. SCOTT: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman considers there are no naval or military officers at the present
moment competent to deal with this question?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Yes, Sir, I think there are. There are very exceptional men. I think the heads of the three services at the present moment sitting together constitute as near an approach as we can get to that kind of joint staff—Lord Beatty, Sir Hugh Trenchard and Sir Henry Wilson That we have already in working order, and we propose to develop it further. But I speak of a body of officers united by a common doctrine, united for a period of years, and not isolated individuals of exceptional capacity who can be brought together to unite the action of the three services. The development of such a body of officers is really a step which is far more urgent than any question of the uniting of the various Ministers under one head. Personally, although it is not a matter which I expect to see come in my time, the uniting of the three Ministries into a Ministry of Defence is, I believe, an inevitable tendency of events. No doubt much hostility will be shown here and there.

Captain W. BENN: By the First Lord of the Admiralty.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am expressing my opinion.

Captain BENN: Quite.

Mr. CHURCHILL: I am always glad to get support from so substantial and authoritative a quarter. It seems to me that is the ultimate tendency, and that it will be adopted in every country in the world before many years are past. The mere advent of the air as a great new element in the conception and consideration of war will, I think, cause complications between the older services which will lead to a solution of that kind. That is my view of the ultimate step. The practical step, and the only one which is likely to be taken in the next few years, is the formation of this joint staff and this joint staff college with special training to enable the officers who will serve on that joint staff to be created without delay. That is a matter which I trust will be taken up. So far as the War Office are concerned, we shall certainly take it up and push it forward with the utmost energy. The proper time, however, for a Debate on a matter of
this kind is on the Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence. That is the occasion which, if those; Members who are interested in this matter choose to turn their attention to it, would give them full facility during the course of the Session for a general Debate on the policy of the three services combined. It is not reasonable to address these matters entirely to the representative of one single Department, or even of two Departments. The Vote for Imperial Defence affords the opportunity, and in the past it has always been customary for the Government to accede to any demand for a discussion of that topic during the course of the Session.

Sir J. DAVIDSON: I gather from what the right hon. Gentleman has said that this question of a Joint Advisory Body for the three Services has been postponed until those colleges are in existence.

Mr. CHURCHILL: No. My hon. and gallant Friend has gathered with less discrimination than usual. We have at present in existence a system of Inter-Departmental Conferences between the Heads of the Fighting Departments. It is proposed, also, to revive the Committee of Imperial Defence, and I say that the next step which has to be taken is towards the creation of a Joint Imperial Staff.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Are we to understand that step is to be taken and that these new Joint Colleges have been started?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, certainly not. I am explaining what is the view and what is the course which the War Office will take, so far as it is proper for them to take any course, in the general organisation. The proper time to raise this matter is not on the War Office Vote. It is a topic which affects the whole of the three Services, and an answer can be given only by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House, who are the heads of the Government and who are able to deal with matters which are above the Departmental sphere. I am trying to deal with the matter as well as I can without putting myself out of my place, or stepping outside of my authority. I now come to the situation in the Middle East. It is a very anxious situation. Still, I must admit that it is not proving as formidable in practice as it seemed in
prospect. At any moment that may change, but, up to the present, one has been relieved, on the whole, to find that tendencies that looked so very disastrous have not, in fact, produced situations of extreme difficulty. But the situation is extremely acute. There is the Egyptian situation. We hope that Lord Milner's Mission will have relieved the tension there to a considerable extent. There is the Palestine situation. That, of course, is affected by the French occupation of Syria and the consequent fighting with the Arabs, which not only has disturbed the French zone, but has made special precautions necessary in our own area. There is the situation in Constantinople. We were obliged last week to occupy Constantinople in a direct military sense, and, with the forces at our disposal by sea and land, we were able to effect that without more than a scuffle. Then there is the situation in Mesopotamia. There are three causes of anxiety in regard to Mesopotamia. There are the Turkish Nationalists under Mustapha Kemal, who repudiate the authority of the Government at Constantinople so far as it is convenient to them to do so. There are the Arabs who have been disturbed by the occupation of Syria, and who are inclined now, for the first time, in many ways to make common cause with the Turkish Nationalists, thus uniting two forces by whose division our policy has hitherto prospered. Lastly, there are the Bolsheviks.
The destruction of the anti-Bolshevik forces has proceeded to a very marked extent, and very soon the Bolshevik military power, whatever it is worth, will, over the whole of those great regions North of the Caucasus and beyond the Caspian, be quite unchecked by any Russian force. With the fall of the Caspian Sea—which must, of course, take place as soon as the ice in the Volga melts, and the Bolshevik flotilla can descend the river—the Bolshevik forces will be in close touch with the doubtful Republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, and not only with them, but also with the hostile forces of Mustapha Kemal. On military grounds this junction is formidable. I am not at all certain that political reasons may not lead the Bolsheviks to a course different from that which, judging solely by the military situation, would appear to be open to them. To do thorn justice they pursue larger
aims than what you would call mere Imperialism. Their essential objects are a dictatorship of the proletariat, the abolition of private property and the establishment of a world-wide communism. It is probable that they would judge of the military situation not from the point of view of acquiring this or that piece of territory, but of spreading their doctrines in other lands and giving their principles the widest possible application. But although in a military sense a junction between the Turkish nationalists and the Bolshevists would seem to be possible it is not certain that it will necessarily be followed by the ordinary military consequences. Mesopotamia is affected by all these forces, the discontented Arabs, the revolting Turks and the Bolshevists who, if they do not unite, nevertheless will endeavour and are nevertheless endeavouring to spread their propaganda throughout all the countries to which they can gain access.
In these rises it is obvious that the whole position in the Middle East causes great anxiety. I hope, however, as I suggested on the Air Vote, that it may be possible to effect economies during the course of the present year by holding Mesopotamia through the agency of the Air Force rather than by a military force. It has been pointed out that by your Air Force you have not to hold long lines of communications because the distance would only be one or one-and-a-half hours' flight by aeroplane. It is essential in dealing with Mesopotamia to get the military expenditure down as soon as the present critical state of affairs passes away. You could not go on holding that-country if it entailed the spending of £20,000,000 to £30,000,000 a year. If that were so I should be the first to recommend getting quit of it under those conditions. But why should a system of statecraft be unsuccessful in Mesopotamia which has proved successful in other parts of our Empire? I am not prepared to admit that 20,000 or 30,000 white troops and 30,000 or 40,000 Indian troops will be necessary to hold every little village and post in Mesopotamia, and other methods would be devised if we are to retain that province. I have never for a moment accepted the view that whenever we have taken charge of a particular sphere of territory, we have to dominate every square mile of it.
That is absurd. Everyone knows what was done in West Africa. You open up block by block each area, and your influence' permeates, friendly relations are established, trade springs up, local militia are established, local troops are brought in, and there is always a little force growing and gathering, and in this way great areas are brought in by Englishmen proceeding with justice and for the benefit of the people, as well as for their own benefit. In this way great areas are brought under control with extraordinary economy so far as white men and money are concerned. This is the line in which, so far as we are concerned, we are now working in regard to Mesopotamia. We trust that in the near future it may be conducted with very great economy. However, I will make a further report to the House upon this matter later in the Session. The staff inquiries are proceeding very hopefully and satisfactorily.
The anxiety we feel about the Middle East may well be matched, and even surpassed, by the anxiety that we must feel about events in Germany. I often hear speeches made here, and in the country, and I read articles in the newspapers, which seem to depict the British military experts and generals of the Army as if they were always Jingoes seeking new opportunities for strife, and animated by a spirit of relentless revenge against all their life antagonists. No account could be more remote from the actual truth. During the whole of the time since the Armistice, all the generals with whom I have been brought into contact have, without exception, been men reluctant to embark on a policy of ruthless revenge towards the German people Or the contrary, it was a British General's protest from Cologne which first drew attention to the lamentable state of feeding amongst the civil population there. At every stage those men who were most forward in pressing on the War to the point of victory have been those who have given consistent advice—on the ground of purely British interests—in regard to the sagacious and moderate treatment of the nation which had been completely broken and shattered by our forces.
The state of affairs in Germany naturally causes us the greatest anxiety. For many years the strength of Germany was the greatest danger to Europe. For the
last 15 months the weakness of Germany-has been the danger to Europe I ventured to say in January that the Republican Government in Germany, the quasi-Socialist Government, deserved the support of the Allies. We ought to do our best to help them to maintain them selves against either a military coup d'état or a Bolshevik explosion. We rejoice to see they have overcome one danger in the last few days. But when we recall the evil events in Russia after the quarrel of Kerenski and Korniloff one cannot help feeling deeply anxious as to the position of a Government deprived of the greater portion of the forces of law and order through their ill-behaviour, and at the same time confronted with all the violent movement of a suffering and struggling population. It ought to be the policy of Great Britain, from a military point of view, by every means in our power, to enable a moderate German Government to maintain itself as a living entity, and under its ægis to organise the productive energies of the German people, and so enable prosperity to revive I could not deal with this question in Debate without indicating very clearly the line of purely military advice which has emanated during the whole course of this year from the General Staff in regard to our treatment of the Germans.
I am much obliged to the House for the way they have treated the Army Estimates. We are really doing a great deal at the present time when you look at the different areas—the different scenes of excitement and unrest in which we are concerned it is astonishing. Ireland, Egypt, Palestine, Constantinople, Mesopotamia, India—all these great responsibilities, which we have upon our hands, in a state of tension and disturbance which has never been witnessed in times of peace. We have to cope with all these problems, and what have we got? We have

only that Army, that small Army, that little British Army crushed in the laurels of great armies which have disappeared—that little British Army which we have been able to raise out of the spirit of voluntary enlistment of the currency of last year. And we are carrying on. But such a situation imposes the utmost prudence in the policy of the Government, It is not possible to have a policy of voluntary service and at the same time to carry out sustained national animosity against throe or four of the greatest Powers of the world. They are absolutely incompatible if we are to get through these difficult times without imposing upon our people the sacrifice of conscription which most probably they would resent at this stage. We must base ourselves not upon force, though a certain amount of force is needed, but upon a sagacious, shrewd, prudent and conciliatory policy in many directions, We have, of course, behind our little Army the terror of the British arms, the prestige which this country has acquired and the knowledge that if a great occasion arises there are millions of men in this country trained for war and capable of being equipped with weapons which, in a great cause, would assert the national will to defend a righteous cause. That we have; but even with that we should not get through these difficult times in every land in which we are at present concerned if British troops were not welcome, if British officers were not treated with respect, if the British name was not hold in high repute as being a name associated with fair dealing and with an earnest desire to promote the general peace and well-being of mankind.

Question put, "That 510,000 of all ranks be maintained for the said service."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 38: Noes, 178.

Division No. 68.]
AYES.
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. F. D.
Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)


Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)
Kiley, James D.
Swan, J. E. C.


Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)
Lunn, William
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tootill, Robert


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Midlothian)
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Malone, Lieut.-Col. C. L. (Leyton, E.)
Waterson, A. E.


Cairns, John
Myers, Thomas
Wignall, James


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Newbould, Alfred Ernest
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
O'Connor, Thomas P.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Raffan, Peter Wilson



Grundy, T. W.
Royce, William Stapleton
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)
Sexton, James
Mr. Hogge and Mr. G. Thorne.


Holmes, J. Stanley
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)



NOES.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.
Greig, Colonel James William
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Ormsby-Gore, Captain Hon. W.


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Palmer, Brigadier-General G. L.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Parker, James


Atkey, A. R.
Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)


Baird, John Lawrence
Hamilton, Major C. G. C.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry


Baldwin, Stanley
Haslam, Lewis
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Peel, Lieut.-Col. R. F. (Woodbridge)


Barker, Major Robert H.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Peel, Col. Hn. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)


Barnett, Major R. W.
Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Perring, William George


Barnston, Major Harry
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Hickman, Brig.-Gen. Thomas E.
Pownail, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton


Beck, Sir C. (Essex, Saffron Walden)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Prescott, Major W. H.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Hinds, John
Pulley, Charles Thornton


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Rankin, Captain James S.


Betterton, Henry B.
Hood, Joseph
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)
Robinson, S. (Brecon and Radnor)


Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland
Hopkins, John W. W.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Borwick, Major G. O.
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rutherford, Colonel Sir J. (Darwen)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Hotchkin, Captain Stafford Vere
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Breese, Major Charles E.
Howard, Major S. G.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Bridgeman, William Clive
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.


Brown, Captain D. C.
Hurd, Percy A.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Bruton, Sir James
Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)


Butcher, Sir John George
Jameson, J. Gordon
Seager, Sir William


Campbell, J. D. G.
Jellett, William Morgan
Seddon, J. A.


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Johnstone, Joseph
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Carter, R. A. D. (Man Withington)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Casey, T. W.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Stanier, Captain Sir Beville


Chadwick, R. Burton
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Stanley, Lieut-Colonel Hon. G. F.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
King, Commander Henry Douglas
Stephenson, Colonel H. K.


Clough, Robert
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Stevens, Marshall


Coats, Sir Stuart
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Stewart, Gershom


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Taylor, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Lindsay, William Arthur
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)
Lloyd, George Butler
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Townley, Maximilian G.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lonsdale, James Roiston
Turton, E. R.


Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.
Lorden, John William
Vickers, Douglas


Denison-Pender, John C.
Lort-Williams, J.
Waddington, R.


Dixon, Captain Herbert
Loseby, Captain C. E.
Wallace, J.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)
Walters, Sir John Tudor


Edge, Captain William
Lynn, R. J.
Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.


Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)
McLaren, Robert (Lanark, Northern)
Waring, Major Walter


Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.
Macmaster, Donald
Warren, Lieut.-Col. Sir Alfred H.


Farquharson, Major A. C.
Maddocks, Henry
Watson, Captain John Bertrand


Fell, Sir Arthur
Mallalieu, F. W.
Weston, Colonel John W.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Middlebrook, Sir William
Whitla, Sir William


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moles, Thomas
Wild, Sir Ernest Edward


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut-Col. J. T. C.
Williams, Lt Com. C. (Tavistock)


Ganzonl, Captain Francis John C.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H-
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Gardiner, James
Morrison, Hugh
Willoughby, Lieut.-Col. Hon. Claud


Gilmour, Lieut-Colonel John
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C.
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Glyn, Major Ralph
Murchison, C. K.
Young, Sir Frederick W. (Swindon)


Goff, Sir R. Park
Murray, John (Leeds, West)



Gould, James C.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. O. L. (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Gray, Major Ernest (Accrington)
Norris Colonel Sir Henry G.
Lord E. Talbot and Capt. Guest.


Green, Joseph F. (Leicester. W.)




Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported to-morrow.

Committee report Progress: to sit again to-morrow.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Dr. Addison): I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It is rather a late hour to move the Second Reading of this Bill, but in the

circumstances which I will explain I am sure this departure from our usual practice will be overlooked. It is proposed by the Bill to bring into operation certain increased benefits on the 5th July next, but certain parts of the Bill relating to the remuneration of medical men and increased allowances to approved societies to cover their administrative expenses date back necessarily to the 1st January of this year. In order to comply with the conditions precedent to the alteration, and to provide new cards, new stamps and other processes required in the administration of the Department so that the amended Act may come into
operation at the date suggested, three months of active work is necessary. Furthermore, unless we can secure that the amending Bill will some into operation on the required date the finances necessary for providing the funds, particularly for increasing the societies administrative expenses from the 1st January will not be forthcoming. It is for that reason necessary to secure, if we can, the Second Reading and the necessary Financial Resolution for this Bill before the House rises for the recess. Members will be familiar with the programme of Parliamentary business from now to the Adjournment; and in consequence of the circumstances, we are asking the House to take the unusual course of taking this Bill at a late hour.

The main provisions of the Bill arise out of the altered financial situation. It is proposed, as set out in the White Paper which has been circulated, to increase the benefits in the case of men from 10s. to 15s. a week for sickness benefit and from 5s. to 7s, 6d. for disablement, and for women it is proposed to increase sickness benefit from 7s. 6d. to 12s. and disablement benefit on the same lines as for men. These increased benefits necessitate increased contributions, apart from the increased Treasury contribution, of 3d. per insured person. It is proposed to secure 2d. from the employer and Id. from the insured person. The result of the adjustment of the contributions is that, in the case of the male contributor, the employer will contribute 5d. and the insured person 5d. In the case of women, the employer will contribute 5d. and the woman 4d. This applies to all cases save those exceptional instances where the age of the insured person is below a specified figure. The figures are set out in the Schedule to the Bill.

Another important change relates to maternity benefit, which it is proposed to increase from 30s. to 40s. Another important change is the proposal to take sanatorium benefit out of the Insurance Act altogether. That, as the House will possibly rightly gather, is only the first change of a comprehensive policy which I hope, at some date, to be able to set out, under which we propose to deal with the problem of tuberculosis as a whole with respect to all sections of the population. The fund which will thereby be set free is devoted towards the increase of the
other benefits. Then we propose that the administrative allowances to societies shall be increased by one shilling per member. At present the contribution towards the administrative expenses of societies is 3s. 5d. per member. We are proposing that it shall be 4s. 5d. I think that every society and all members associated with the administration of this Act will recognise that that is a very necessary proposal. I wish that we could have gone even a little further. Societies have laboured under a serious disadvantage; they have had the perplexing alternative either of under-paying their staff or of losing on their administration account.

There is another proposal which is not apparent in the Clauses of the Bill because it is an administrative arrangement. There is a fund, as set out in the White Paper, an extra amount roughly equivalent to 2d. per insured person, which we propose to use for the employment of medical referees and consultants, which societies have hitherto had to employ for themselves. The proposal is roughly this, that cases which have been a long time on the sick benefit list, and other specified cases, at the behest of a society or of the insured person or of the medical man, can have the benefit of the consultant or referee who is provided under this scheme. Many societies have spent at least 2d. per insured person in employing referees on their own account hitherto, in order to deal with these cases. There is another change in the financial scheme of the principal Act, which is necessitated by the altered figures of contribution. In the principal Act the contribution from the Treasury towards the benefits in the case of men was two-ninths, and in the case of women it was one-quarter. It is proposed now to make the contribution towards the benefit uniform throughout the Act. That immensely simplifies the transactions under the altered scale of contributions; in the case of women we propose to adopt the same basis of Treasury contribution as in the case of the males, that is two-ninths, and to add twenty-five per cent. to the special fund which has hitherto been set aside for women societies in consequence of certain risks which the experience of those societies has shown to exist. That provision is contained in Clause 5 (3), and
is also dealt with in Clause 1 (3). There are also a considerable number of minor alterations which relate more to Committee points than to Second Reading. There are various benefits, for instance, to soldiers and sailors in respect of which hitherto 1½d. per week has been deducted from their pay by the Army and Navy authorities. We propose to do away with that deduction, which in future will be borne on the Service Votes as the employers' contribution. There are some minor technical Amendments which I shall be glad to explain in reply to hon. Members, and which are principally Committee points. In accordance with the altered scale of wages and diminished value of money we have, as will be seen from the Schedule, raised the figures of wages per diem which would entitle the worker to receive assistance from the State from 2s. to 2s. 6d. There are also some alterations as to medical benefit, and at the request of the societies in order to make the finance clear we have put into the Bill in Clause 7 the actual contribution from the insurance funds towards the cost of medical benefit a sum of 9s. 6d There was an item known as "the floating sixpence" which, as a matter of fact, never floated, but still, there it is, and we propose definitely to simplify the accounts: and in the same way we have arranged for a sum which in the aggregate amounts to £300,000, which will be devoted, under appropriate supervision, to assisting the locomotion of practitioners in scattered rural districts. In this connection I must refer to the medical benefit Regulations which are coming into operation now and which, I hope, will help to make good a number of deficiencies in the medical service. The medical men, with whom I have had many meetings, have recognised that in many respects, in certain places anyhow, the practice for insured persons has not been as satisfactory as it ought to be, and I hope that under the improved medical benefit Regulations, coupled with the assistance which the medical consultants must necessarily give, we shall steadily improve the quality of the service. The standard which I laid down, and which was accepted by the Central Medical Committee, was that the practitioner should give to the insured person as good, as complete and as frequent attendance as he gives
to an ordinary private patient. In connection with this, there were considerable negotiations. I made an offer of 11s. to cover these various costs, and ultimately, in consequence of the difference between us, this was referred to an independent board of arbitrators. I am happy to say that the arbitrators confirmed my figure, and their decision was the 11s. I had pro posed. I hope that with this short explanation hon. Members will be satisfied that the Bill is on the right lines, that it helps to remove some well-marked anomalies, and that it will secure for the insured person a rate of benefit more commensurate with the money values at present existing than is the case under the Act as it stands at present.

Mr. MYERS: As one who has had considerable experience in the administration of the Act for a number of years, I would like to make a few observations on this Bill. I shall not refer to the financial provisions of the Bill, because I take it they will have stood the test of actuarial investigation and will simply be based upon the extended rates necessary owing to the changing value of money. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman refer to the provision that is to be made for medical referees. It has always been a very delicate matter for a private practitioner, attending persons as panel patients, to exercise his authority at the time when he might have done for fear of suffering injury in other directions, and an independent medical man over and above the particular doctor who is attending the panel patients is a very desirable thing and has been long overdue.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the attempt to make up the deficiencies in the administration of the medical benefit. These deficiencies have been very pronounced and far-reaching, and for some time have been calling aloud for redress. I am glad that he has the assurance—and I hope that it will be carried out—that the practice will be extended to panel patients, and that it will be just as good and as satisfactory as the service given to private patients by the same medical men. The practice of the Insurance Act has a long, long way to go before in many respects it reaches that standard. Unfortunately, there has developed in the public mind, and among those who are insured persons, an idea that there are two standards of treatment, and it is a
matter of common knowledge that some medical men have taken one part of the day for ordinary patients and another part of the day for panel patients, and sometimes have cut off panel patients for given days in the week. It was not expected that the provisions of the Act would be carried out in that fashion, and it is hoped that this practice of giving one method of treatment to panel patients and another method to private patients will be discontinued. There are some medical men who, I believe, carry out the provisions of the Act as merely incidental to the ordinary practice in which they engage. There is still one very serious omission from the National Insurance Act in respect to the responsibilities of panel doctors. Owing to a large number of doctors leaving their practice and going to serve in the War, a tremendous number of panel patients were thrown into the surgeries of particular medical men. It is recognised that many medical men had upon their panel considerably more patients than they could do justice to. In peace time that ought to be prevented. There ought to be a limit to the number of patients any medical practitioner can take into his panel. The present distribution of patients among the doctors is altogether irregular even in industrial towns. Sometimes, it is purely a question of geographical location or the fancy of patients for a particular doctor. It is not outside the range of efficient administration to remedy in some degree that inequality in the distribution of patients, and I am hoping that the Regulations to which the Minister for Health has referred will stiffen up this matter in two directions. I hope that the Government will see to it that doctors, in the granting of certificates, keep to the Regulations and that the sharp line of distinction between panel patients and private patients is obliterated. I am also glad to note that an agreement has been effected in regard to the Sanatorium Benefit, because there is one section of the Act which still leaves the ordinary panel practitioner in charge of consumptive patients. The treatment of tuberculosis under the Act has been exceedingly unsatisfactory, and the medical men of the country are very largely responsible. They threatened to take direct action or something of that sort. When the Insurance Act was on its way, 1s. 3d. per
member was agreed to as being that part which should be set aside for sanatorium benefit, and the doctors came along and said "We want 6d. out of that for domiciliary treatment." Now domiciliary treatment has been an absolute failure. The doctors have got the 6d., and I know they have visited the patients at their homes, but when a patient has been so bad that he was not fit to be admitted into an institution, the Insurance Committee have allowed domiciliary treatment, which was expected to be for the initial stages of the disease rather than the back, end of the disease, and the doctor has made his weekly call and taken his 6d. until that man has died. That has been the operation very largely of domiciliary treatment. Forms and charts and all the rest of it have been provided. There is not an Insurance Committee who can tell the Minister of Health how many people they have in their area under domiciliary treatment. Owing to the fact that ever since the Insurance Act has been in operation Insurance Committees have only had 9d. per member to provide institutional treatment in the nature of dispensary and sanatorium treatment, the whole thing has been unsatisfactory from many points of view. Insurance Committees at the start could not get the institutional treatment they desired, and if available, they were not able to pay for it. As soon as a consumptive patient is notified by the private medical practitioner attending that patient, I could wish that the case could be taken absolutely out of the hands of the Insurance Committee, and put under the control of the local authority, with a little bit of that ginger which the hon. Member for the Wrekin Division (Mr. Palmer) mentioned the other night.
One of the most popular benefits of the Insurance Act is the maternity benefit, and I am disappointed at the figure put upon the maternity benefit by the right hon. Gentleman. It ought at least to have been doubled. To-day £2 is altogether inadequate, having regard to the value of money as against pre-war times, but even if that were not so, the expenses of a confinement are tremendously heavy, and £5 is quite little enough for an ordinary man's household on an occasion of that sort. With some experience of the administration of the Act, I would say that, if the actuarial arrangements will not permit of any further benefits being paid, I would curtail some of the benefits for
married women on the weekly pay, and counter-balance it by additional payment in cases of maternity. I believe that would not create any measure of hostility, but would be generally accepted by insured persons. In any case, I think the maternity benefit ought to be increased, if it can be done. Further, I think we ought to have provision in this Act of Parliament for insurance contributions ceasing before a person reaches 70 years of age. As a matter of fact, there are very few continued legitimately up to that point. I know of numbers of instances where people have ceased work before 70, and have gone outside the Act to maintain their contributions until 70, in order that they should secure the free medical advantages that the Act provides. Very few people, under the pressure of modern conditions, are able to follow an industrial employment until they are 70, and even if they are, they have done their share long before that, and ought to be relieved of the responsibility of paying National Health Insurance contributions. I should like to see that age limit, and also the Old Age Pension age limit, brought down. If a man or woman has worked until the age of 60, they have been a real asset to the State during that period, and in the latter days of their life the State ought to be ready to take care of them as a State liability full and complete. Even if we cannot approximate that standard, we might relieve the burden by giving them, at least, free medical attendance after the age of 60, without any further contribution.
When everything has been said that can be said in regard to this Bill, and to the Act which it seeks to improve, it is only an ameliorative measure; but I do not want to depreciate its value on that account. It is a tremendous step forward as compared with the conditions that prevailed before the inception of the Act. The title of the Act itself, however, is a misnomer. It does not insure health; it makes a payment for sickness, and it waits till sickness comes, and deals out advantages or benefits to the medical man, the chemist, and the member who is affected. There is too much of that waiting until illness comes rather than tackling the problems from the preventive aspect. I think there ought to be something in this measure which will impose upon Insurance
Committees and local authorities a definite line of policy in the direction of preventive work. So far as I know, it does not contain a line as to that. In the earlier Act a responsibility was put upon local authorities to do certain propaganda work against the evils of bad housing and so forth; but I know of two places where that has been done. It ought to be imposed, as one of the conditions of the Act, upon Insurance Committees and local authorities. The measure lacks vision from that point of view. It ought to have inside it a measure of sentiment which will create in the public mind a national interest in health matters, instead of merely waiting for the calamity to come, and then endeavouring to take off the sharp corners and soften the ill effects. It ought to be a direct stop in the direction of a national medical service, where every person in the community should be under custodianship of the community, in order to secure and maintain the best standard of health we can get.
I will not indulge in any criticism of the Act or of this Bill. Perhaps it is as far as public opinion at the present moment is prepared to go, but it is for us, as far as we are able, to show the way. I hope that one or two of the points I have mentioned may be noted by the Government, and that the Bill may be stiffened up, in order that we may look upon it in the future as a direct contribution towards securing that Al population of which we hear so much and towards which we do too little.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. WARREN: The purpose of this Bill is to try to remedy what has arisen as a result of present economic conditions and the depreciated value of money. Last Session, in respect of National Health Insurance, a very reasonable proposal was passed through this House, raising the income limit to £250, as against £160, because the circumstances of the employed persons of the country had so materially changed. Tonight we have to deal with National Health Insurance in a more comprehensive manner in relation to the benefits under the Act and to payments made in respect of the various services rendered. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, in his Second Reading speech, referred to certain matters that had been under negotiation, and to the results which followed. The medical profession
had made representations that, owing to the altered circumstances, they felt that they had a just claim to an increased payment in respect of every panel patient. This Bill provides for a payment of 9s. 6d., plus 1s. 6d.—I take it that that is to come out of public funds—giving the doctors, in the aggregate, the sum of 11s. That is a very excellent advance upon their previous payment—an advance equal to at least 57 per cent., and I am very hopeful, like the hon. Member who has just spoken, that there will be a materially improved medical service, and that those of us who have to deal with the administration of the Act up and down the country will not be constantly confronted with the reasonable complaints that are made by large bodies of persons as to the treatment which is meted out lo them. They are as much entitled to full and free benefit, and the very best medical service, as any private patient of any doctor.
Other matters were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but I have been waiting expectantly to hear from him some reference to the approved societies of the country. Having had to do with this matter of National Health Insurance before it became an Act, and knowing something of the difficulties in relation to the matter, and to the passing of the Act through this House, I have got rather tired of hearing so constantly about the doctors. The doctors never have been satisfied. There have been constant complaints ever since the Act commenced working in 1912. Those of us who sit upon the Medical Service Sub-Committees for the various counties are conscious of the legitimate complaints that come in as to the treatment which many panel patients receive, and I hope that now, having got such an admirable advance, we are going to get an improved service But, as I have said, I have been waiting to hear something regarding the approved societies, and I am going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if he has anything to thank the doctors for, he has also a great deal for which to thank the approved societies. They have never indulged in direct action, and, although they have had a great deal of negotiation, both with him and with his predecessor, yet it has always been with the most loyal intention and desire to work the Act. In all the improved benefits that are mentioned in this Bill, and that have
been metioned in the Debate in this House to-night, there has been no reference to the economic conditions that apply in relation to the approved societies. Let me remind the House that in 1912 the proposal in respect to approved societies, for administration in relation to employed persons was 4s. per head per annum. Passing reference was made to a floating sixpence, and the right hon. Gentleman said the sixpence never floated. I beg to suggest that it floated out of the administration of the approved societies, and that another penny also floated out, giving them, in the aggregate, 3s. 5d. per person, to administer the Act in all its many phases and ramifications. In the beginning the friendly societies of the country were deprived of 15 per cent. of the original sum intended for the working of this Act. They started off with that dead weight. The result was that they had to cut, carve, and curtail. Although the approved societies have earnestly endeavoured to work the Act, yet none of their officials have ever been in any sense adequately paid. I wish the right hon. Gentleman had found it in his heart to have offered some terms to the members of these societies, and to have told the House as to their future. There is no mention in the Bill of any increased payment. If I am correctly informed, the Consultative Council have had this matter under consideration, and proposals have been made to increase the administrative allowance by 31s. per head per annum, making the 3s. 5d. into 4s. 5d., an advance of 29 per cent. The figures of one of the largest and most reliable of centralised approved societies, one operating all over the country, show the administation allowance for 1919 to be 91,523. This was an increase upon 1913 of no less than 43 per cent. Fees and salaries have increased by 58 per cent., printing and stationery by 149 per cent., rent 132 per cent., rates 142 per cent., lighting 75 per cent., other matters—carriage, etc.—25 per cent., and travelling 21 per cent., making in all 43 per cent. I would have had other figures prepared by the Manchester Unity of Oddfellows, but that I was under the impression that this Bill would not come on till after Easter. The approved societies have had a very great struggle. I know the right hon. Gentleman can reply that
during the years 1912–13 there were in a certain number of cases surpluses. How did these arise? Because of the anxiety of the societies not to have a deficiency they went to the other extreme, and cut and carved to such an extent that, again I say, those who have been primarily administering this Act in more than 10,000 branches of more than 2,000 approved societies have been paying their members the merest pittance, and a sum in no sense adequate to the services rendered. I am therefore very hopeful that before this matter is finally dealt with the right hon. Gentleman will look very carefully into it. We are not talking about striking or direct action or downing tools. We are asking only for that which will enable us to pay in some sense reasonably adequately those thousands of men whose economic conditions are just as much touched as those of the doctors who are affected. The same as every other class of the community in the falling value of money, and we ask that on their behalf there shall be some due recognition, that we shall have the satisfaction of knowing that in administering this great measure of national health neither the approved societies nor the Government can be charged with sweating.

12 M.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I think we ought not to proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill without a little further guidance from the Minister of Health in regard to Clause 4. I was on the Committee of the original Insurance Bill, and on the first amending Bill, and I remember what tremendous hopes were held out to the country with regard to sanatorium benefit, and now, with the exception of Ireland, sanatorium benefit is to be swept away and we are to have an entirely new and as yet nebulous scheme for dealing with tuberculosis. Any attempt to deal with this disease merely in the case of insured persons is doomed to complete failure, and above all other things it is absolutely essential that we should begin with children and persons under insurable age, and I hope before this Bill leaves the House we shall get from the Minister of Health a clear lead as to what the intentions of the Government are to put in the place of the sanatorium benefit which he is abolishing,
because it really is vital to many people to know what is being put in its place. If you confess that sanatorium benefit is a failure to deal with the white scourge in England, why do you continue it in Ireland? Why are you going to continue to saddle Ireland with this thoroughly unsatisfactory way of dealing with this disease I There is a great migration from Ireland to England, and you will never deal with this question if you deal with it in one way in Ireland and another in Great Britain. The sole explanation is that you do not give medical benefit in Ireland, and you must give them some benefit for their contribution. But if sanatorium benefit is not good enough for dealing with tuberculosis in England the only honest thing to do is to reduce the Irish contribution and abolish sanatorium benefit there, or else increase the Irish contribution so that you give them whatever you are going to give to the English tuberculosis patient.
Paragraph 3 of the Memorandum fixes the total charge upon the fund at 9s, 6d. per insured person per annum for medical benefit "including drugs as well as attendance." I gathered from the speech of the Minister of Health, in introducing the Bill, that drugs were to be treated separately and that it is not to be an inclusive fee of 9s. 6d. for atendance and drugs as well, but the Memorandum seems to set that out. In my constituency there is the utmost feeling on the part of the medical profession with regard to any system which makes an inclusive fee for drugs. They say, as long as that happens, they cannot give to the insured person the drugs he ought to have given in certain cases. There are a large number of panel doctors up and down the country who are having a pretty hard time to make both ends meet, when they have to keep cars going and all the rest of it, especially in country districts, and they cannot afford expensive drugs, and it is essential to the smooth working of the panel system that the payment to the doctor should be exclusive of drugs; and I should wish to see in any amending Bill drugs treated, not as part of an inclusive fee, but as a separate thing altogether. It is only in individual cases, that special drugs are required, and it stands to reason that a separate central fund ought to be created for the purpose.
Then there is the question of the enormous number of patients which some doctors have on their panel list, and the small number that others have. The War has accentuated that. The public demand is for the maximum possible free choice of doctors. There is no getting away from that. That is the democratic demand. The question is how to reconcile that demand with the situation that undoubtedly has arisen since the War where some doctors, have far more patients than they can reasonably deal with. There again you are up against facts, and I should like to hear from the Minister of Health whether he has any concrete proposals for dealing with that situation, because in my Constituency there is still a certain rather strong feeling on this question of free choice of doctors; and I have no doubt there is in other Constituencies, and I hope the question can be settled under this Bill once and for all, and that we can come to some arrangement which will prevent doctors and insured persons endeavouring to contract out of the national scheme because they are not satisfied with the provision that is made under it, either on the one side or the other. I regret that the Second Reading of a Bill so important as this was taken after eleven o'clock, and I hope the Government will not make any attempt to rush the Bill through the Committee and Report stages. All who care for the progress of public health should give the measure the closest consideration in all its details. We have now an opportunity of doing leally good work, but Parliament never docs really good work if you try to rush Bills through and take the stages in the early hours of the morning. Having taken the Second Reading now, I trust the Government will give all the more time for the fullest possible consideration in Committee and on Report.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I, too, regret that the Bill is being taken at this hour. I had what I thought was reliable information that the Bill would not be taken until after Easter. The Second Reading to-night has taken everybody by surprise. This is a very important Bill. It adds £1,750,000 every year to the burden of the Exchequer. It adds over £6,000,000 a year to the employers' contributions, and it adds £3,000,000 to the contributions of the insured persons. I rise in no hostile
spirit because I feel that it is a very valuable and very necessary Bill. I am sorry that in this Bill the right hon. Gentleman has not done what he could to simplify the scheme of national health insurance. Not only has the scheme not been simplified, but to a very large extent this Bill extends the complications that already exist under the Act of 1912. A Bill was passed in 1918 doing what was thought possible to simplify health insurance, but this Bill seems to extend the complications of the scheme. I am sorry to see that nothing is being done to put the Post Office contributor under the national Health Insurance. The case of the deposit contributor has always been a bit of a scandal. They pay exactly the same contributions as everybody else, but they do not get the same benefits. The only benefits they get amount to the sum which is actually to their credit. They do not get the benefit of the pool; they only get the benefit of their individual contributions. Supposing a post office deposit contributor has 10s. to his credit, and he falls seriously ill and becomes a permanent invalid, he only gets 10s. He cannot get any more, because he has only 10s. to his credit; whereas the man who is a member of an approved society, if he is in the same circumstances, would, under the ordinary scheme, get 15s. a week for 26 weeks and 7s. 6d. for life. In the same way in regard to maternity benefit, if the miserable man has only 10s. to his credit he only gets 10s. towards the maternity benefit for his wife, whereas the man who is a member of an approved society gets 40s. maternity benefit for his wife under this Bill. I do not think it is in the interests of humanity that this large class of persons should be outside proper life insurance, certainly not as regards maternity benefit. It is very much against some of the children and child life in this country. It is not insurance at all. It is absurd to call it health insurance to bring these people into the National Health Insurance Act at all. When the Bill was brought in in 1912 it was stated definitely that those deposit contributors should come to an end by 1st January, 1915. I have heard the Prime Minister in those old days say that they must come to an end, that the problem was a diminishing one, that these deposit contributors would gradually diminish until they became extinct. That is not so. I have looked up the figures
and find that just after the Prime Minister—he was then Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken in 1912, there were then 395,000 deposit contributors. According to the actuaries' report in July this year there are going to be 450,000. AH these ought to be transferred to the National Health Insurance Act. I do not think that very many of the approved societies would object. In the old days the Prime Minister used to argue that all these persons were bad lives, but it has been shown that they are not bad lives, but that on the whole they are very good lives. They are not people whom the approved societies would refuse to admit on account of ill health. They are people who object to compulsory insurance, or who would not take the trouble of joining a society, but on the whole they are good lives, and I believe that they would be welcomed by the approved societies if they were brought in. Now is the time to do it. The insurance committees have got three duties. They have to look after sanatorium benefit, medical benefit and deposit contributors. You are taking away sanatorium benefit. Under the scheme foreshadowed now by the Minister medical benefit would be taken away from them when he brings in his poor law scheme. It will probably be handed over to some kind of health council, and if you transfer the deposit contributors to the National Health Insurance you do away with the necessity of insurance committees altogether.
Another point is the case of low wage earners. Under the Bill, if a worker earns 2s. 6d. or less a day the employer pays 9d., the State Id., and the worker nothing. But if the employer pays less than 2s. 6d. a day to a person over 18 years of age he ought to pay that 1d. contribution himself. The payment by the State not only adds to the cost on the Exchequer, but adds greatly to the complexity of the machinery of the Bill. The employer under the Bill has to pay 10d. He has then to make a claim to the State to get back the Id. It only amounts to 4s. 4d. a year, and the payment of this by him would save very costly investigation of claims and incidentally save the Exchequer a consider able sum. I am very sorry to see in the Bill the differentiation kept up between men and women. That means another
complication of machinery, and increases the cost. The employer pays 5d. for a man and 5d. for a woman, but the man pays 5d. and the woman 4d. They get exactly the same disablement benefit, the same medical benefit as the men, but the woman gets 12s. sickness benefit, instead of the 15s. given to the man. Why cannot you make the benefits and the contributions identical? That would be infinitely simpler, it would do away with the complication of having different bases of contributions and benefits, and it would be juster as between the sexes. Although I am not a Member of the Committee upstairs, I understand that in the Committee on the unemployment Insurance Bill, the Government has promised to consider abolition of the differentiation between the sexes in regard to benefits and contributions. If you are going to do away with it in the case of unemployment insurance, I do not see why you should not do away with it in the case of health insurance. Men and women are treated practically equally politically. I hope that the Bill will be carefully scrutinised in Committee, and that it will be greatly simplified on the lines I have suggested.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: The deposit contributor out of a spirit of pure cussed-ness, has refrained from getting the full benefits of the Act, because he could quite easily have become a member of an approved society. I believe that one of the great approved societies offered to take over the whole of the deposit contributors. Something ought to be done, I agree, to solve the problem. When the Act was initiated I took a very prominent part in Scotland in opposition to it, because I think the whole structure of it is bad, and that it is an ill-digested scheme, most extravagant in all its operations. The one feature of the Act that appealed to me was the sanatorium benefit. It was the great feature dangled before the public at that time; it was the rare and refreshing fruit that was held out to the poor consumptives. The promise was made to the ear and then broken; it was ninepence for fourpence—an appeal to the basest element in human nature. The Act provided for sanatorium benefit the paltry sum of 1s. 3d.; any amount of money for officials and for administration and for the doctors and for drugs, but for the poor consumptive, the most pathetic figure in our social
life, there was only 1s. 3d. And he was robbed of 40 per cent. of the 1s. 3d., for sixpence was docked to be given to the doctors. In credit to the doctors it must be said that they did not desire to rob the poor consumptive of that sixpence. There was left to the poor consumptives under this much lauded Act a miserable sum of ninepence. And to that extent the Act was bankrupt from the beginning. When promises were made to insured persons, and they were called upon with the employers, to contribute for certain benefits, they had the right to get the full benefits promised, but what happened was that the poor consumptives were thrown on the rates of the local authorities and the local committee had to come forward and give the benefits outlined. It is little wonder that the sanatoruim benefit disappears out of this Bill. The Government had no choice but to do since the treatment of consumptives had got into such a muddled condition, and now the local authorities have to find the money for the whole of the consumptives in this country, whether insured or non-insured, and they have been doing so in the past.

Dr. ADDISON: There have been generous contributions to the local authorities who have never found all the money.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: They have found their share of the deficiency. The State contributes one half and the local authority the other half. In my own county, in Scotland, we have treated every case of consumption presented to us in a sanatorium, whether coming from an Insurance Committee or outside, and the local authority there has readily borne its part. It has cost that local authority about £2,000 per year as their part of the deficiency. But what was the promise in the Health Insurance Act, under which contributions for benefits were exacted from employers and insured persons. The benefits outlined under the Act were not afforded and the Act was, to that extent, fraudulent and bankrupt from the beginning. Now the sanatorium benefit disappears without much lament and without any reference.

Dr. ADDISON: I referred to it, in opening the Debate.

Mr. JOHNSTONE: I regret I did not hear the opening part; of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. There was
no choice, after the colossal failure of this part of the Act, but to allow the benefit to disappear from it, but it is no great credit to the Government and to those responsible for the institution of this Act that it should have come to such a sorry pass. May I say as a word of consolation to the right hon. Gentleman that I think in no part of the country has this Act been worked so well as in Scotland. With regard to the administration of the drug fund, we have set up there under the Regulations laid down by the Scottish Insurance Commissioners a Drug Bureau, which has been most successful, and under which we have managed to keep the cost within the two shillings provided. As a result of the operations of the Drug Bureau, many abuses have been checked and an improved quality of drugs given to the patients, and there is no reason why that should not be done elsewhere. I do feel that it was necessary, before agreeing to the Second Reading, that some emphatic protest should be made against the deletion of sanatorium benefit from the Act, and that no fuller explanation should have been offered in regard to it.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: Notwithstanding the apologies for taking this important subject at this hour, the Debate which has already taken place on various subjects shows that this question really deserved consideration at a time when the House could properly understand it. The one point alone of sanatorium benefit is surely worthy of more consideration than can possibly be given to it at this late hour. With regard to the Bill the reason given for it is the fall in the value of money. We are told by the Board of Trade figures that the increased cost of living amounts to 130 per cent. I do not notice that the benefits under this Act are increased at the rate of 130 per cent. Bather they vary from an increase of 50 per cent. in the case of men and of 60 per cent. in the case of women, figures which I think are totally inadequate. Surely, if the reason for the alteration is the extra cost of living, then the increase, no matter how it is made up, should be something approximate to that cost of living, and I hope it may be possible, even although the Second Heading may be carried in its present form, that when the Bill gets to Committee these rates may be reconsidered. When this
point was discussed on the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill it was thought by some who were ignorant of the procedure that in Committee the rates of contribution and of benefit could be dealt with, but in Committee they were ruled out of order, because the House had already settled, on the Financial Resolution, that the Committee could not in any way vary those matters. Therefore, I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill whether it is possible, in framing his Financial Resolution, to put it in such a form that the Committee will be able to discuss and, if necessary, vary the rates of contribution and of benefit. Otherwise, it seems to me that the Second Reading here is the only occasion when any material alteration can be made, and that only with the consent of the Government on these particular points. In the Unemployment Insurance Bill we were met with the objection by the Government that they could not raise the subsistence allowance for women for unemployment benefit because the Government had a corresponding Bill, this Health Insurance Bill, where the rates for women were less than those for men, and I suppose that in Committee on this Bill we shall be told that the Government cannot make the rates the same, because you have already, in the other Bill, got this differentiation. I would appeal to the Government whether they consider this paltry sum of 12s. a week an adequate subsistence allowance for a woman. It is not a question of making the rates for men and women the same, because nobody can suggest that even 15s. is an adequate allowance during sickness. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman, with all his technical knowledge, will not say that it requires less to sustain a sick woman than it does to maintain a healthy woman. I hope that the Financial Resolution will be so framed that we can go into this question, and that it will be raised in the Committee upstairs. At this juncture the health conditions of the country are of infinitely more importance than ever before. After the ravages of the War we have to build up the health of the country in a way that it did not require before. Therefore it is very desirable that a full allowance should be given as the weekly benefit under this Bill.
As regards the treatment of tuberculosis, I understand the reason this has been taken out of the Bill is because it is of great importance, and it was thought it was not being adequately dealt with so far as the nation as a whole is concerned. I differ entirely from some hon. Members who have disparaged what the Health Insurance Committees have done with regard to the administration of the tuberculosis benefit. It has differed in different parts of the country, but I think it would be unfortunate if the impression went out that throughout the whole of the country there had been a totally inadequate handling of this problem so far as insured persons are concerned. The defect of the Act was that tuberculosis treatment could only be given to insured persons and that their children and others who did not come within the scope of the Act were excluded. The question is so important that it is to be dealt with on national lines, and for that reason has been taken out of the Bill. I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that, until the national scheme is established, those benefits which are in existence under the Insurance Act shall be continued, so that there shall be no interregnum during which those who are now getting benefits will be without them. As to drugs, we shall all welcome the change which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, and although it may not be clear where it is outlined in the Bill, we have his assurance that they are going to make a definite grant for drugs. I hope the right hon. Gentleman when he comes to reply will be able to give some assurance as to this question of sanatorium benefit, which we all realise is of the utmost importance. It is not that we desire to see an increase in the number of institutions, because if you have good expert advice you may get as good preventive treatment at home as by establishing expensive sanatoria throughout the country. Again, I differ from the hon. Member who spoke last as to extravagant administration. I do not think anyone can charge the Government or the Health Commissioners with extravagance. Few Acts have been passed under which greater benefits have accrued to those concerned. The Bill would be greatly improved if it were possible to increase the allowances to be granted, and I hope when the Bill goes into Committee
that it may be possible to deal with that.

Captain ELLIOT: I must say how deeply we regret that it has been necessary to take a measure of this importance at this late hour, a measure dealing with vast sums of money and affecting a large percentage of our population—15,750,000 according to the White Paper which has been issued. To hurry this, the Second Reading of a measure like this, is altogether inadequate treatment. If the Minister for Health could have made it possible to give us some outline of his idea of what the health policy of the country should be, this is a fit moment to declare it. He has very large health measures in view—the break up of the Poor Law and so on—and it is only right that these policies should be before the country for a certain time before they are brought in in the form of a Bill. The congestion of business will come next autumn, and then these other measures will be brought on in a hurry and hurried through Parliament again, and we shall have no opportunity of a general discussion of the health policy of the country, which badly needs overhauling. Surely the Second Heading of the National Health Insurance Bill is a fitting time for the Minister of Health to give us an outline of what he hopes to do. The problem divides itself into a preventive section and an administrative section: What are you going to do to prevent disease and what are you going to do to look after it? The preventive section, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Myers) said, has been very little developed in the country as a whole. There has been no linking-up of the hospitals. The hospital system of the country is crying out for new treatment. The position is really serious with regard to the hospitals, and while we have no indication from the Minister of Health as to the course he proposes to take, the hospital service is one without which the Insurance Act would have been bankrupt from the beginning. Many of the benefits of the Insurance Act would have been illusory but for the hearty co-operation of the great voluntary institutions of the country. These are faced with ruin just now, and if they go down or their usefulness is impaired in any way, it would do far more injury to the health of the country than all the benefits this Act can
give will compensate. The hospitals of the country ought to be increased in number and size instead of finding themselves faced with the prospect of actually closing down their wards because they have not enough money. The waiting-list at our hospitals is a scandal. If every patient in the beds of our hospitals could by a stroke of magic be cured to-night you could to-morrow morning fill again every bed in every ward from the waiting-lists alone. It is a sickening thing to stand at the gates of one of our large hospitals and realise that you are taking down the names of men who by no possibility will get treatment for weeks or months, or, perhaps, never receive any treatment at all. Perhaps it is a case of a minor operation concerned with the, cartilege of the knee. The man, who is not able to get out to his work, will go on unable to work, unable to play his part as a citizen, unable to keep himself in good health, simply because he cannot get treatment, yet a few weeks in a hospital would be sufficient to put him right. Sanatorium benefits have been mentioned to-night, and I understand the Minister has a large scheme in prospect. Surely an occasion like this is the opportunity to give a few details of what it is hoped to do. We hear of big schemes for the treatment of ex-service men, big schemes for the treatment of all manner of people suffering from tuberculosis, but if we are not told more about these things we cannot criticise them authoritatively, and if the Minister does not get criticism from the country he does not know what the country is thinking. Tuberculosis is a preventable disease. Why should it not be prevented? There are millions of people in this country suffering from tuberculosis, and if they are worth £1,000 apiece—and any of us is worth more than that—it shows that the country is losing £1,000,000,000 just now through this one disease alone. There ought to be printed across the front page of every one of the Sunday newspapers "1,200 people died last week of preventable diseases." If that were done week in and week out the country would be roused to the facts of the situation. If every hon. Member would realise that out of every five glasses of milk he drinks there is one glass full of live tubercule bacilli he would understand why we have this large number of patients throughout the country.
As to the administrative section, this Bill will do nothing to help the treatment of disease. The treatment of the disease when it has arisen must be based upon the general practitioner, and he is the man whom we must seek to help and encourage in every possible way. The general practitioners should be got together in clinics, so that they may, each in his own way, specialise to a certain extent. There ought to be a big surgery with modern improvements, and a waiting-room. The ordinary doctors' waiting-room is a really scandalous thing in many ways. We ought to have clean and decent places with proper accommodation where people can meet who are waiting to see the doctors and not be crowded together, some of them in suffering, for hours together in rooms which no man—certainly not a doctor—would sit for ten minutes if he had his own free choice. Then there is the question of improved administrative arrangements in respect to orderlies, nurses, and other helpers. We found out during the War, in the Army, what an unnecessary amount of work was being done by the doctors. We are using razors to chop fire-wood, when the minor details of nursing and surgery are done by the doctors. It is a waste of his time and skill to have a man who is paid £1,500 or £2,000 a year doing that. It could be got rid of by making a small administrative change. These are points which we could have discussed on the Second Reading of a Bill like this, and only on the Second Reading.
There is much that could be done, but we cannot begin to discuss it at the end of a long day's Debate on another subject. A great deal has been accomplished, but much remains still to be done. The people of this country are healthier than the people of any other civilised country in the world. They have, on the average, longer lives than the people of France, Germany, or even the United States, that rich country crowded with so many institutions. Since the Franco-German War, science in this country has added five years to the life of every one of our 40,000,000 inhabitants. We have done that since 1870. If the Health Ministry could give us a lead, I believe we could still add from 10 to 15 years of life and full mental and physical activity for everybody
in this country. These are things worth discussing and worth any amount of trouble, but they cannot be gone into now in this discussion at a quarter to one o'clock in the morning. By adding five years to the average life of the 40,000,000 of our people, what have we done? Each person produces, say, £40 a year at least, so that we have saved 40,000,000 times £200 on the five years, which comes to £8,000,000,000. We have therefore saved since 1870 the cost of the War to this country. We have been calculating on indemnities from our late enemies, but we should try to win greater indemnities from victories over the kingdom of death. These are worth securing, and would be better than adding to our debt and having to rescue the starving people of Austria and Germany. We should get for the money spent a great return in the added strength of our young men and women. That is the gold and riches we should possess if we had not only the knowledge but also the power and energy to prevent the spread of tuberculosis and other diseases. This disease knocks down men and women between 35 and 40 years of age, the most yielding and fruitful years of life. If we could spend on the science of health what we spent on the science of war we should get a great reward, if not in cash then in public securities in the health of the nation. Last year the Manchester Health Committee saved £700,000 for the Assured Societies. That was money saved for the benefit of the nation. The members of these societies are stronger and better people than they were before.
These are the things we can do. We can deal with tuberculosis; we know enough about that. It is not more research that is needed, we want its application; but in many cases we want more funds for research work. That is an investment that would pay thousands per cent. Hundreds of thousands of pounds are saved in a single year as the result of research in this country. If we got the money for research, and it were spent to promote the well-being of the people, we would get a dividend that would out-do the promises of some of those bankrupt bucket-shops in connection with the Stock Exchange. We tell you what we know; we testify the things that we have known, but you believe not. We can give you these results, but you will not accept them. It is wisdom crying in the market
place where nobody pays attention to it, though I should say that the marketplace is the last place one would expect to find the voice of wisdom. I want these things discussed, and one becomes rather heated because one feels very deeply about them. We want to diminish disease and give to the people the root rights that the old philosopher claimed for them—life, liberty, and the right to pursue happiness. That is a democratic ideal, that everybody should have the inheritance of a sound mind in a sound body, with equal opportunity for all. To secure that is the greatest task that can be laid upon the Government and the nation. If we take these things seriously in hand we shall be able to claim that we are really a great nation.

Dr. ADDISON: In making a brief reply to what has been said, I may say, in the first place, that I agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Warren) that I ought to thank the Consultative Council on Approved Societies work for the help they have given in the preparation of this Bill. Their good work has justified the departure we made in setting up these councils. In reply to another hon. Friend I may say we have not at present any regulation limiting the number of persons who shall be on one medical man's list of patients, but that is to be provided for in a new regulation. I can give an assurance that there will be no hiatus in the change from one method of the treatment of tuberculosis patients to another. As to what has been said by the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore) and other Members, I agree that we ought to deal as a whole with all sections of the people, but this is not the proper time to go into the details of that. We are not proposing to deal now with all these points and could not now debate the questions of the Poor Law and other departments of the work. Nobody would rejoice more than I would if the opportunity arose. The deposit contributors are not such unfortunate persons as the hon. Member seems to think. They are in some respects the aristocracy of the insurance contributors. They are, in the main, deposit
contributors by their own choice. Many societies would be glad to have them. Some of them have accumulated considerable balances. With regard to the low wage earner, the hon. Member did not make a proposal that the employer should pay the whole amount, but I should be willing to consider favourably an Amendment on these lines if it is the wish of this House. The differentiation between men and women is not fully understood by my hon. Friend opposite. It would mean, for example, that we should have to increase the contribution of the women by twopence per week while we only increase that of the men by one penny, while there are difficulties arising from the fact that there are 1,500,000 women workers outside the scope of the unemployment insurance scheme. We shall, however, have an opportunity of discussing this in Committee. I think I have covered the main points raised and I thank the House for the generosity it has shown in dealing with this measure.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE [EXPENSES].

Committee to consider of authorising the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of any additional expenses incurred by any Government Department under any Act of the present Session to amend the laws relating to National Health Insurance (King's Recommendation signified), to-morrow.—[Dr. Addison.]

The remaining Orders were read and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Seven Minutes before One o'clock.